That the court should consider the serious misconduct committed by Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO
and alleged by the BNDA, on a professional level, regardless of the criminal wrong ;
That the the facts of the case however clearly show that Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was indeed
dismissed with due reason and cause. That as a matter of fact, Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO,
while she was no longer the manager of the BNDA branch authorised two overruns of several tens of millions ;
That by acting in this manner, she was guilty of serious misconduct, justifying her dismissal;
That furthermore, she herself admitted that made a mistake by stating “although I am aware of the
administrative wrong that I committed and underestimated earlier on, I did not commit any embezzlement that could
push me to run away”;
That this admission alone does in fact justify her dismissal in as much as she failed in her duties;
That she admitted that she violated the bank's procedural requirements in this instance ;
That this admitted professional wrong made the Bank lose close to three hundred million;
That subsequently, this appealed ruling wrongly interpreted the provisions of article L.40 of
the Mali Labour Code , because to declare that the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO
is irregular, the appealed ruling argues that the said dismissal was performed without the issuance
of a notice ;
That this analysis is hinged on a wrong interpretation of the above-mentioned article L.40,
which provides that employment contracts may be terminated without notice in the event of
serious misconduct;
That Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was however dismissed for serious misconduct
because she authoris ed two overruns whereas she was no longer the branch manager;
That this ruling wrongly considered that the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was irregular ;
That in conclusion, the ground deducted from the absence of approval from the labour inspector cannot equally
be upheld;
That to declare that the disputed dismissal has no due cause and reason, the ruling handed down argues
that the dismissal was not approved by the labour inspector ;
That this means consequently that the ruling handed down seems to make the licitness of any dismissal subject
to the approval of the labour inspector; That by deciding in this manner, the appealed ruling lacks a legal basis;
That in fact, the opinion of the labour inspector has no compelling normative power;
That as such, the official who sought the opinion does not have to comply with this opinion and he/she is as such free
to comply with or disregard this opinion;
That the appealed ruling seems to use opinion and prior administrative authorisation interchangeably;
That there is no due reason and cause for the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou
DIALLO if dismissal is tied to a prior administrative authorisation of dismissal ;
That however no provision in the Mali Labour Code makes the dismissal procedure subservient to a
prior administrative authorisation for dismissal ;