IS THERE BAD BLOOD BETWEEN ENPF, MINISTRY?

MBABANE – The ENPF was not invited to be part of the team that appeared before the Senate Portfolio Committee on Labour and Social Security recently.

This has been revealed by the Eswatini National Provident Fund (ENPF) Chief Executive Officer Prince Lonkhokhela. The ENPF is a public enterprise that falls under the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which had appeared before the portfolio committee for the annual performance report and 2023/2024 budget debate. Having noted the absence, senators suspected that there was bad blood between the ENPF and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The members of the portfolio committee raised these suspicions as they were asking about the status of the conversion on the ENPF into a national pension scheme. Almost all the senators who had questions about the conversion noted that the team from the ministry’s departments and parastatals were not all represented as the ENPF team and the CEO Prince Lonkhokhela was not present during the debate. All other parastatals of the ministry were present, including the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC) was present.

The senators questioned if the ministry and the ENPF’s relationship was in the right state. They said the reason they questioned if there was bad blood between the parastatal and its mother ministry was because the CEO with his team always attended all Parliament sittings except this one. One of the senators, who did not mince any words about the absence of the ENPF CEO, was Senator Tony Sibandze. “I have been observing the presence of the ministry’s departments during the sitting, they all show up. However, today I am noting that ENPF is not here. I understand we direct our questions to the minister not heads of department but my question is sebaphocene ngani because we always admired their unity,” he wondered.
concern

Another senator who raised a similar concern was Princess Ntfombiyenkhosi. The senator said she was disappointed to note that the CEO and his team was not present during the debate while stating that since they came to Parliament, ENPF was not represented. She also stated that it was a pity because they had a number of questions regarding the conversion of ENPF.
The senators went on to note that they had been given one and the same answers regarding the status of the conversion Bill. The conversion will see workers who are beneficiaries of the ENPF receiving monthly salaries and a lump sum payout upon retirement. Under the current position, members can withdraw their contribution by the time they reach 45 years and above.

Senator Sylvia Mthethwa, who is also the chairperson of the portfolio committee echoed the senators’ sentiments. She asked the minister to clarify what led to ENPF’s absence during the debate because it was the first-of-its kind. The Minister of Labour and Social Security, Phila Buthelezi, was represented by the Minister of Public Service Mabulala Maseko during the debate. In his response, Maseko told the senators that the ENPF was held up by other duties. The minister gave the responses after he had answered some questions that were posed by the senators. “My apologies senators, it has completely slipped my mind, the ENPF team had other crucial commitments, so for that reason they could not be here,” he said. He assured that the ministry and its parastatal had a smooth working relationship and there was nothing brewing behind closed doors that might have influenced them not to join the Senate debate.

However, the CEO denied that he and his team were held up by other commitments such that they missed the senate debate. The prince explained that the reason they were absent on the said day was because they never received an invite. Worth noting is that when a ministry is set to appear in Parliament it then sends a communiqué to its departments and parastatals to delegate representatives. “I can confirm that indeed we did not receive communication inviting ENPF to the debate and only became aware at the tail of the session,” he said. He said when they enquired, they were advised that it was an unintentional and regrettable mistake and they had accepted it as such. “Had we received an invitation, attendance would have been our priority as we respect parliamentary matters as such matters always take precedent,” he said.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: