Registry officer sacked over triplets' false birth records

A Civil Registry processing officer has lost her job after the Labour Court upheld her dismissal for registering triplets born in South Africa as having been born in Zimbabwe, ruling that deception by the children's mother did not absolve her of her duty to verify the documents.

Justice Bridget Chivizhe dismissed the appeal by the officer, who had worked in the Public Service since 2009, finding that she had failed to carry out essential verification checks before issuing the three birth certificates.

The officer, who was stationed at Guruve District Registry, registered the triplets during a mobile registration exercise at Magaya Primary School in July 2022. The certificates recorded their place of birth as Mugarakamwe Clinic and Mugugu village in Guruve.

The matter came under investigation in November 2023 after the children's biological mother, Bunya, approached the Civil Registry seeking to correct their place of birth and disclosed that they had actually been born in South Africa.

The court heard that Bunya had not travelled to Guruve for the registration. Instead, she sent a copy of her identity document and the children's details to an intermediary identified as Jimu, whom she paid US$200 to obtain the birth certificates.

Bunya denied signing the registration forms, while the maternity register at Mugarakamwe Clinic reportedly contained no record of the triplets' delivery.

In dismissing the appeal, Chivizhe found that the officer had registered the children without the biological parents being present and without properly verifying their identities.

"The fact that Ms Bunya and her intermediary initiated the deception does not relieve the appellant of responsibility," the judge ruled.

"It explains how the deception was attempted. It does not explain why the required safeguards were not applied."

The judge said the officer's role went beyond recording information provided by applicants, requiring her to establish that the individuals were properly identified and that the information supplied was supported by reliable documentation.

The officer argued that her supervisor's signature on the registration forms indicated that the necessary checks had been completed.

However, the supervisor, Muderere, told the court that he sometimes signed forms in bulk after they had been completed because of the high volume of people seeking services. He could not confirm whether the triplets' biological parents had attended the registration exercise.

Chivizhe ruled that the supervisor's signature did not prove that the parents were present or that their identities had been independently verified.

The court also accepted Bunya's evidence that she had never given anyone her original identity document, having only sent a digital copy to the intermediary through WhatsApp.

"It follows, inevitably, that whoever appeared before the appellant holding themselves out as Ms Bunya and Mr Mupwanyiwa were not the biological parents," the judgment stated.

The judge emphasised that the officer had not been charged with fraud or accused of conspiring to falsify the children's place of birth. Instead, the disciplinary case concerned the alleged improper performance of her duties and conduct inconsistent with her official responsibilities.

"Improper performance of duty does not require proof of dishonesty or complicity," Chivizhe said. "It is sufficient to establish that the appellant fell materially short of the standard required of her position."

The officer, who had 11 years of experience as a processing officer, maintained that she should not be held responsible for deception allegedly orchestrated by the children's mother and the intermediary.

The court rejected that argument, stating that verification procedures were designed to protect the registration system against precisely such misconduct.

"An officer cannot point to the very fraud her safeguards exist to intercept as the reason those safeguards were not observed," Chivizhe ruled.

The officer also asked the court to consider her personal circumstances, arguing that she was a widow and single mother of five children, three of whom were still attending school. She further submitted that she had served the department for 15 years.

She contended that a previous disciplinary conviction in 2016 was outdated and unrelated to the current misconduct, and that her mitigating circumstances had not received sufficient consideration.

Although the court acknowledged her personal circumstances, Chivizhe found that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal.

The judge noted that birth certificates are fundamental identity and security documents, adding that the officer's conduct had resulted in three children receiving certificates recording a false place of birth.

"Even without that conviction, the seriousness of the present misconduct justified a severe sanction," she said.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision by the Secretary for Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage to discharge the officer from the Public Service with effect from November 15, 2024. No order for costs was made.