Bank employees demand fairness

Employees in the banking industry, organized under Botswana Financial Institutions and Allied Workers Union (BOFIAWU), have dragged government to court demanding the repeal of Section 17(8) of the Banking Act, which imposes restriction on their loan applications. Arguments in the case were scheduled to be heard in Lobatse High Court on Wednesday, 09th October 2024 but have been moved to December 11th, 2024 due to unavailability of the judge. 

Section 17(8) imposes a limitation on persons by virtue of their being employed by banks when they apply for loans, which is not applicable to employees in other sectors of the economy. For example, if a bank employee earns P120 000 per annum they cannot get an unsecured loan exceeding P120 000. 

Although they accept that the banking sector is a highly regulated environment industry that has policies and procedures to manage excessive and unreasonable practices by employees, BOFIAWU insists that such a piece of law is not only discriminatory against employees in the sector but also limit their opportunities. 

“We are saying that which is applied to workers elsewhere must be extended to bank employees. Otherwise, this amounts to discrimination. Bank employee’s standard of living has been gravely affected by these Section 17(8) restrictions with its limitations on borrowing. 

The restrictions are not justifiable and amount to discrimination to employees by virtue of them being bank employees . Our position is that Section 17(8) of the Banking act is archaic and regressive. We wonder why the Attorney General would defend such an act, at whose interest and what prejudice will anyone suffer if the act is repealed for the benefit of bank employees, “ retorted Keitshokile Basuti,

Executive Secretary BOFIAWU. 

At the hearing of arguments in the matter, the Attorney General will raise two preliminary points (points in limine) seeking the dismissal of the application. On one hand the AG argues that the failure to cite banks and the central bank amounts to a fatal non-joinder, and that the application does not contain the resolution purporting to authorise the launching of the lawsuit (void ab initio). 

“Rarely, does a litigant bring a suit for discrimination which is allegedly outlawed by the Constitution of Botswana but dismally fails to fit his/her/ its case within the grounds of discrimination stated in the relevant provision of the Constitution. The Applicants’ (BOFIAWU) ground for discrimination is not one of the grounds stipulated in the Constitution. And in fact, what the Applicant alleges as different treatment is not discrimination at all. This case is pivoted on section 17(8) of the Banking Act (BA) which prohibits

all banks from granting or permitting all the banks’ employees from being given unsecured loans, advances or credit facilities the amount of which exceeds such employees’ one year’s emoluments. It is clear that in this case it is the banks who give such unsecured loans to their employees and not the Respondents and therefore it is the banks who are directly affected. In short, it is being alleged that the employees of the banks are discriminated against by reason of or on the ground of them being employed by banks. 

Effectively, if the order was to be granted, it will have a direct implication or effect on the banks. These allegations, which deal with operations of the banks and regulation of the banks by the central bank, can better be answered by the banks and the central bank. They all have nothing to do with the respondents (Attorney General).” Reads part of the papers filed by the Attorney General in opposition. 

The case continues