Senior positions come with status. They may bring better remuneration, greater authority and increased influence within an organisation.
But they also bring something else:
Greater responsibility.
What happens when a senior financial officer authorises or facilitates a payment without ensuring that the necessary supporting documents are in place? Can the pressure of work excuse the mistake? And if there were imperfections in the disciplinary process, does that automatically mean the resulting dismissal must be overturned? The Supreme Court of Zambia considered important questions of this nature in Mulenga v Lusaka City Council and Another [2016] ZMSC 266. The decision contains useful lessons for executives, finance professionals, HR practitioners and employment lawyers.
The Transaction
Ms Jessie Mulenga was the Assistant Director of Finance at Lusaka City Council and had also been acting as Director of Finance. The dispute arose from a payment relating to the purchase of a gearbox for a Council fire tender. The disciplinary process found that payment had been processed without important supporting documentation and that the Council suffered financial loss. Ms Mulenga admitted that she had been careless, although she explained that she had been under pressure at work. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of gross negligence.
“I Was Under Pressure”
This is an explanation many professionals will understand. Senior employees often operate under considerable pressure. Emails arrive constantly. Documents require signatures. Deadlines overlap. Meetings consume the day. A finance director may have dozens of documents requiring attention. But the greater the financial authority attached to a position, the more important it becomes to maintain discipline precisely when the pressure increases. If your signature authorises substantial money to leave an organisation, the signature cannot become a routine administrative gesture. Before signing, the responsible officer should be asking: What am I actually authorising?
Financial Controls Exist for a Reason
Supporting documents are not simply bureaucratic paperwork. They are part of an organisation’s internal controls. Depending upon the transaction, those documents may demonstrate:
- that goods were actually delivered;
- that services were actually performed;
- that procurement procedures were followed;
- that the correct amount is being paid;
- that the appropriate authority approved the expenditure.
Removing those controls because management is busy defeats their purpose. Fraud and financial loss often flourish where routine becomes: “Just sign it. Everything is fine.” Good governance requires something better.
The Higher the Office, the Greater the Expected Care
There is a broader leadership lesson in Mulenga. The standard expected of a junior employee processing routine paperwork may not necessarily be viewed in exactly the same way as the conduct of a senior officer entrusted with substantial financial responsibility. Authority and accountability travel together. If an organisation gives an officer power over important financial decisions, it is entitled to expect appropriate care in the exercise of that power.
The DAC source article captures the point succinctly: “The greater your authority, the greater the responsibility that comes with it.”
But What About the Disciplinary Procedure?
There was another important dimension to the case. Your source material records that there were inconsistencies in the terminology used during the disciplinary process. Ms Mulenga argued that these procedural problems made her dismissal unlawful. The Supreme Court nevertheless looked at the underlying evidence. Her admitted carelessness, senior financial responsibility and the loss suffered by the Council supported the finding that she had committed a dismissible offence.
The case therefore produced an important principle: A problem with disciplinary procedure does not necessarily erase serious misconduct that has actually been proved.
That Does Not Mean Procedure Is Unimportant
This qualification is essential. Employers should not read Mulenga as saying:
“If we think the employee is guilty, procedure doesn’t matter.”
That would be the wrong lesson.
Employers should still:
- formulate charges clearly;
- communicate the allegations;
- allow the employee an appropriate opportunity to respond;
- consider the evidence;
- follow applicable contractual and statutory procedures;
- reach a properly reasoned decision.
The safer approach is always to get both the substance and the procedure right. An employer should not want to arrive in Court saying: “Our process was poor, but please uphold the dismissal anyway.”
Good HR systems should avoid creating that argument in the first place.
Employees Must Also Confront the Evidence
There is an equally important lesson for employees. Sometimes a dismissal challenge focuses almost entirely on finding an imperfection in the procedure. That may be important.
But the employee and lawyer should also confront the underlying question:
What does the evidence show about the alleged misconduct?
A procedural argument may be much less persuasive where serious misconduct is established by strong evidence, particularly where the employee has made relevant admissions.
Acting Director Versus Director
The case contains another valuable employment lesson. Ms Mulenga had been acting as Director of Finance. When another person was appointed to that position, she returned to her substantive position as Assistant Director of Finance. She argued that this amounted to a demotion and therefore punishment. The Supreme Court disagreed. Her acting appointment was temporary. Returning her to the substantive position she actually held was not, in the circumstances, a disciplinary demotion. This distinction matters in many organisations.
“ACTING” IS AN IMPORTANT WORD
An employee may be appointed:
- Acting Managing Director.
- Acting Chief Financial Officer.
- Acting Head of Department.
That may carry substantial authority for the period concerned. But it does not necessarily mean that the employee has been substantively appointed to that office.
The appointment letter should therefore make clear:
- the substantive position;
- the acting position;
- commencement date;
- duration or triggering event;
- acting allowance where applicable;
- powers attached to the acting role;
- what happens when the acting arrangement ends.
Clarity prevents expectations from becoming disputes.
The Governance Lesson Goes Beyond Employment Law
Mulenga is technically an employment dispute, but its implications extend into corporate governance. Every organisation should ask:
- Who can authorise money to leave?
- What evidence must accompany a payment?
- Who checks compliance?
- What happens when documentation is incomplete?
A financial control that can be ignored whenever somebody says: “This is urgent” is not much of a control. Senior management must create a culture in which employees are permitted—even expected—to say: “I cannot approve this until the documentation is complete.” That protects the organisation.
Technology Can Help, But It Cannot Replace Judgment
Modern financial systems can make these controls more effective. Payments can be configured so that they cannot proceed without:
- purchase orders;
- approvals;
- supporting invoices;
- goods-received confirmation;
- multiple authorisations.
Digital audit trails can show:
- who approved,
- what they approved, and
- when they approved it.
But technology still depends upon human judgment. An electronic signature clicked without reading the documents is simply a faster version of signing blindly on paper.
Public Money Deserves Particular Care
The case involved Lusaka City Council. That gives the matter an additional public-governance dimension. Public resources ultimately exist to provide services. Financial procedures protecting those resources should not be regarded merely as administrative inconvenience. They exist because public officials are custodians of money that is not personally theirs. The same principle applies to directors and senior officers in private companies. Authority over somebody else’s money carries responsibility.
The DAC View
At Dzekedzeke and Company, we believe Mulenga v Lusaka City Council provides a useful intersection between employment law, leadership and financial governance.
For employers: Conduct disciplinary proceedings properly, even when the evidence appears strong.
For employees: Do not focus only on procedural imperfections. Confront the evidence concerning the alleged misconduct.
For senior financial officers: Never allow your signature to become a formality.
Before approving payment, ask:
- Are the documents complete?
- Has the required approval been obtained?
- Have the goods or services actually been received? and
- Am I personally satisfied that this payment should be made?
Being busy may explain why a mistake occurred. It may not excuse it. Leadership gives you authority. Good governance requires you to exercise that authority carefully.
For legal advice on employment law, disciplinary proceedings, workplace investigations and corporate governance, contact Dzekedzeke and Company.
Based on Mulenga v Lusaka City Council and Another (Appeal No. 69 of 2014) [2016] ZMSC 266 (28 October 2016).
