�山����

The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant’s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other documentary evidence that the request was not approved. Further, the onus was on the Applicant to prove that he performed all of the higher-level functions of the G-6 post but he failed to prove his case. With regards to the Applicant’s allegation that Annex 07 (the Applicant’s performance rating for the 2013/2014 reporting cycle filed by the Respondent) is “a fake and fraudulent e-PAS document” , the Tribunal accepted the explanations provided by the Respondent and underscored the obligations owed the Tribunal by parties before it. The Tribunal reiterated that it is tasked with examining the cases brought by the parties with a view to properly applying relevant laws and holding accountable those who have acted unlawfully. The Tribunal pronounced that false and inaccurate statements made by any party with nothing but the intention to do mischief constitute unethical behavior. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s allegations were unethical, unfounded, misleading and malicious.