Manzini – The Public Service Union (PSUs) is openly critical of the Employees’ National Provident Fund (ENPF) Bill No.13 of 2025, highlighting several areas of concern that may affect civil servants, pension contributors, and the sustainability of existing public funds.
Several members of PSUs met at the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) Centre for the legal unpacking session of the Bill where a legal advisor Mr Jele provided insights into the implications of the proposed legislation.
Central among the issues is the proposed compulsory membership and contributions.
Under the Bill, it is proposed that employees will automatically become members of the ENPF upon conversion and must contribute to the fund, whether they wish to or not.
PSU members highlighted that the Bill does not allow employees to elect whether to join, a departure from previous arrangements with the Public Service Pension Fund (PSPF). They say that employees could be financially disadvantaged, particularly as contributions previously going entirely to PSPF would now be split with ENPF.
The Bill also proposes changing the structure of retirement payments. While PSPF allowed for lump sum payments at age 50, followed by monthly salaries after retirement, the ENPF Bill proposes only periodic payments up until death, eliminating lump sum options. This has prompted questions about how employees can access funds and plan for retirement, with Jele noting that many members are concerned about the loss of immediate financial benefits.
The possibility of contributing to multiple pension schemes was also discussed. PSUs clarified that while the bill does not explicitly prohibit joining another pension scheme, section 69 suggests there is limited benefit in doing so, as one would only receive the highest applicable payment. The discussion highlighted potential contradictions and gaps in the legislation, raising the need for careful interpretation to prevent financial loss or confusion for contributors.
Discrimination and social security implications were also addressed. Jele noted that the bill must be examined in the context of age, sex, and other factors to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination principles, including international labor conventions. Concerns were also raised that the bill does not adequately address the role of the breadwinner and dependents in social security planning, leaving potential gaps in protection for families.
PSUs also highlighted the historical context of the bill, noting that attempts to introduce the ENPF scheme date back to the early 2000s but did not succeed. The current version is undergoing its second parliamentary hearing, with a possible third reading expected. Jele emphasized that PSPF contributions and benefits must be safeguarded during the transition, warning that the coexistence of both funds under the new legislation could create conditions that might jeopardize PSPF’s financial stability.
Other issues raised during the session included clarifying the legal definitions and obligations under the bill, understanding the relationship between contributory and non-contributory public schemes, and ensuring that the policy framework does not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups of employees. The discussion also touched on the challenge of balancing employee benefits, fund sustainability, and adherence to social security principles.
Discussion about this post