The Free State High Court on Monday reserved judgement in an application by two senior officials to set aside a decision by Premier Beatrice Marshoff to redeploy them.
Jerry Rakgoale, head of public works, roads and transport, and Makhosini Msibi, head of local government and housing, filed the urgent application.
Rakgoale and Msibi and four other departmental heads were redeployed by Marshoff earlier this year in a move to improve service delivery.
Rakgoale and Msibi, however, disagree with their respective redeployments.
Rakgoale was to head the department of social development and Msibi the department of public works, roads and transport.
Rakgoale said in papers before the court that he does not have the skills to lead the social development department. He said the premier is interfering with his future career plans of becoming a transport consultant.
Msibi said in his statement that he never consented to his redeployment, which he argued was needed before Marshoff could redeploy him.
On Monday, the court heard arguments on an application brought by Msibi in referral to oral evidence.
This follows the possibility of a ”factual dispute” that could be found in the opposing affidavits of the premier and Msibi about his agreement to be redeployed.
Legal counsel for the premier, Karl Tip, stood against the application on the grounds that Msibi had ample time before Monday’s sitting to bring such an application.
Tip also contended that the papers before the court are enough for the court to decide if Msibi gave his consent to be redeployed.
Earlier, the court heard that Rakgoale and Msibi’s attempt to approach the High Court as the first port of call in the matter was ”very unsatisfactory”.
Tip said the applicants came to the High Court without any attempt to address internal remedies at their disposal in terms of the Public Service Act and labour laws.
However, Willem Olivier, counsel for Rakgoale and Msibi, argued the case does not rest entirely on ”unfair labour practices”.
He said the premier exercised her statutory powers in the matter and his clients contend that certain constitutional and administrative injustices took place.
Olivier said this will remove the matter from the ambit of a ”bargaining council” as prescribed by the Public Service Act.
He argued that due to the constitutional nature of the case, there was no internal measure to which the applicants could turn. — Sapa