The Public Enterprises Evaluation and Privatisation Agency (PEEPA) is under growing scrutiny over allegations of an unfair recruitment process, contract disparities, and questionable compensation practices.
The organisation faces accusations of biased recruitment, prolonged acting positions that violate Botswana’s labor laws, and compensation packages offered to individuals who were interviewed but not appointed.
In response to a formal questionnaire sent to the board on these issues, both management and the board defended their actions, citing internal policies and regulations. However, their explanations have done little to alleviate the dissatisfaction among employees and observers.
At the center of the controversy is the board’s conduct and a recent recruitment drive widely criticised for lacking transparency and fairness. Observers allege that certain individuals were favored, with some candidates selected despite questionable processes. Instead of addressing these concerns, critics argue that the board is justifying its actions by invoking internal policies.
In response to the questionnaire, the PEEPA board stated, “We are committed to ensuring that all recruitment processes comply with PEEPA’s conditions of employment and Botswana’s labor regulations. Each candidate was evaluated based on merit and performance, and no irregularities were found in the recruitment procedures.” However, detractors dispute this, alleging that the selection process was influenced by favoritism. “Several well-qualified candidates were overlooked in internal recruitments. It’s clear the process was not as transparent or fair as the board suggests,” one observer commented.
The questionnaire also highlighted disparities in employment contracts at PEEPA. Sources indicate that some employees, especially those in senior positions, received notably better contract terms than others, including higher salaries and longer contract durations, which has created a perception of unequal treatment within the agency.
In response, the board maintained that contract terms are aligned with the conditions of employment. “Contract terms are aligned with the conditions of employment,” the board explained. Nevertheless, it has been argued that these disparities are unjustified. “It’s clear that certain individuals are receiving preferential treatment, and this is causing frustration among the staff. There is a need for more consistency and fairness when it comes to contract terms,” a legal expert commented.
Another issue involves employees who have been in acting roles for extended periods without formal appointments. Botswana’s labor laws require acting positions to be temporary and filled within a reasonable timeframe, yet PEEPA has reportedly kept some employees in acting roles for over twelve months without any indication of when permanent appointments will be made.
When questioned, the board stated that acting appointments were made according to PEEPA’s conditions of employment and that permanent appointments would be made “as soon as is practicable.” Nonetheless, employees feel that the agency is using acting positions to delay permanent appointments, further eroding trust in the management’s recruitment practices and potentially breaching recruitment laws.
In a particularly controversial move, it has come to light that some individuals interviewed for senior roles but not appointed were later compensated with salary increases or new contracts. Critics see this as a way to appease those who were passed over, raising serious concerns about the agency’s governance and use of public funds.
In their defense, the board stated that the move was supported by the conditions of employment. “We believe in rewarding excellence and retaining talent, and these decisions were made to ensure that we maintain high levels of performance within the organisation,” the board’s response read. However, the lack of transparency around these compensation decisions has led to widespread speculation about favoritism. “This kind of compensation raises serious ethical questions. If someone was not successful in securing a role through the proper recruitment process, why are they being rewarded with a pay increase or a new contract? It’s a clear case of mismanagement,” said a labor law expert familiar with the case.
The board’s involvement in recommending internal promotions has also drawn criticism. Sources within PEEPA allege that the board advised management to prioritise internal promotions, yet this advice was not followed.
Throughout this controversy, PEEPA’s board has been criticised for its perceived lack of oversight on staff welfare and recruitment processes. Employees claim they are not sufficiently consulted or involved in key decisions, resulting in a breakdown in communication and trust between staff, management, and the board.
The board maintains that all recruitment and contract decisions are in line with PEEPA’s policies and legal framework. “We are committed to ensuring that all recruitment and employment practices are transparent, fair, and compliant with the law,” the board emphasised. However, labor legal experts and HR practitioners argue that more meaningful engagement and consultation are needed.
“PEEPA management needs to involve employees in decisions that affect them. Where there’s a lack of communication and transparency, a toxic environment will prevail,” one HR practitioner said.
PEEPA’s board and management face increasing scrutiny as the agency contends with allegations of unfair recruitment, contract disparities, and irregular compensation practices. Although the board has defended its actions by citing policies and regulations, the rising discontent among employees suggests that a comprehensive review of the agency’s governance and employment practices is necessary. How the board responds in the coming weeks will determine whether PEEPA can restore trust and improve transparency in its operations.
