4.Final submissions were filed for the petitioner and the 2nd to 5th respondents. The Court has considered all the material on record and returns as follows:a.The undisputed evidence on record is that the 1st respondent has been acting for a long time as Chief Executive officer of the Fund contrary to provisions of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 requiring acting appointments to be for at least 30 days and at most 6 months. The petitioner has established that the respondents have indeed violated the cited values and principles of national governance in Article 10(2) of the Constitution. The petition should succeed upon that finding.b.While the cited circulars froze employment upon stated grounds there was a window for a waiver upon request but which the respondents appear to have failed to utilise. The respondents have not given any reason why they failed to promptly or within reasonable time to develop and issue relevant human resource instruments to pave way for the recruitment. It also appears to the Court that the position of CEO was not a new position as it was already funded and in existence so that recruiting a substantive holder would not amount to a new recruitment of an employee and which the circular of July 28, 2017 but which also gave a window for recruitment in exceptional circumstances and if approval had been obtained from the Chief of Staff and Head of the Public Service. The Court therefore finds that with due diligence, the respondents could have substantively recruited the CEO but they failed to invoke the clear windows of correct action. The Court also considers that the lapsing of the 6 months of acting CEO was such an exceptional circumstance that would entitle recruitment of a substantive CEO but which was not explored at all.c.The petitioner has succeeded and the 2nd to 5th respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner’s costs of the petition.
5In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the petitioner against the respondents for:a.The declaration that the 1st respondent herein has served the statutory maximum six months allowed in law as acting Chief Executive Officer in the secretariat of the Fund and is not eligible for further reappointment in an acting capacity.b.The declaration that the 1st respondent should immediately cease acting as Chief Executive Officer to pave way for a transparent, open participatory recruitment of a new Chief Executive Officer in the secretariat of the Fund and a caretaker CEO to be appointed (for not less than 30 days and not more than 6 months) to oversee the transition.c.The declaration that the respondents have failed in their administrative duties as regards competitive appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer in the secretariat of the Fund.d.The mandatory order is issued compelling the 2nd to 4th respondents to commence or conclude the process of recruiting and appointing the new Chief Executive Officer in the secretariat of the Fund competitively according to law.e.The 2nd to 5th respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner’s costs of the petition.