Two Government ministers have been sued for ordering the reinstatement of suspended Premier Service Medical Aid Society managing director Mr Henry Mandishona, who is facing various allegations of corruption and mismanagement. A PSMAS subscriber filed the lawsuit against Health and Child Care Minister Dr David Parirenyatwa and his Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare counterpart Prisca Mupfumira at the High Court seeking to bar them from interfering with the medical aid society’s business.
Mr Mandishona is tiptoeing under the burden of alleged corruption that has rocked the society in the recent weeks. He is facing a slew of corruption, mismanagement and poor corporate governance charges arising from the manner he conducted business at the society in nearly four months he was at the helm this year. The disciplinary hearing against Mr Mandishona has been put on hold after the two ministers issued a directive to have him reinstated without conditionalities.
The Bulawayo based-subscriber, Mr Emmanuel Jevane Mwale, last week filed the suit at the Bulawayo High Court. He cited ministers Parirenyatwa and Mupfumira as respondents, along with PSMAS’ nine board members Jeremiah Bvirindi, Eria Hamandishe, Valerio Mukova, John Mulilo, Wilson Magaya, Mukaratirwa, Clemence Vusani, L Dube and Mafa.
Mr Mwale wants the court to bar the two ministers from interfering with the operations of the medical society’s board decision to suspend Mr Mandishona. He also wants the disciplinary hearing against Mr Mandishona to go ahead without impediments. The PSMAS board, after gathering evidence allegedly implicating Mr Mandishona in various acts of misconduct, resolved to institute disciplinary proceedings against him in accordance with the Labour Amendment Act.
When the disciplinary proceedings were under way, ministers Parirenyatwa and Mupfumira issued a directive to the society’s board to stop the “due process” and to immediately reinstate Mr Mandishona. Mr Mwale, in his papers, argued that the board members, some of whom are Government workers, would not want to defy the directive from the ministers.
“ (The board members) out of fear and respect of authority sheepishly accepted the directive and are in the process of implementing that, we will see the most senior employee of PSMAS back at work despite facing serious charges of embezzlement of members funds,” he said.
“I am advised and accept that the order issued by the 10th and 11th respondents (Ministers Parirenyatwa and Mupfumira) via the 12th respondent (Secretary for Health) besides being unlawful, smells of corruption. “It goes to the core of good corporate governance, something the 1st up to 9th respondents (board members) are elected and appointed to guard against.”
For Minister Parirenyatwa, Mr Mwale submitted that his position was extremely compromised by proof that has come to light showing that he improperly accessed $100 000 from PSMAS in circumstances that suggested not only naked corruption, but clear theft. “I now have good reason to believe that his protection of the 13th respondent (Mr Mandishona) is a scratch-my-back and I will scratch yours scenario,” said Mr Mwale.
He further argued that the board members who were entrusted to safeguard the subscribers’ funds had reneged their professional duty for practical expediency. In this case, Mr Mwale strongly believes that his case is shared by all the other PSMAS members who have nowhere to go but to approach the court for relief. “10th and 11th respondents ought to be barred from unlawfully interfering with the mandate that PSMAS members gave to 1st to 9th respondents to manage their funds professionally,” he said.
“Further, the lawful disciplinary process that the 1st to 9th respondents had put in place to ensure that the 13th respondent appears before a properly constituted disciplinary authority ought to proceed as originally envisaged.” Mr Mwale’s case is likely to see more subscribers suing the Government since they have a direct and substantial interest in the PSMAS saga.
Ministers Parirenyatwa and Mupfumira, the PSMAS board members and Mr Mandishona have at least 10 days to file their response to the suit.
