PENSIONERS GIVE MABULALA 7 DAYS TO WITHDRAW ‘BAFOKATANA’

MBABANE – Public service pensioners have given the Minister of Public Service, Mabulala Maseko, seven days to issue a heartfelt apology for his ‘bafokatana’ statement.

This is among seven demands made by the senior citizens when delivering petitions to two ministries - the Ministry of Public Service and the Ministry of Finance - yesterday. They are also demanding the re-categorisation of the Public Service Pensions Fund (PSPF) to be under Category B, stating that failure to do so will mean that the Minister of Finance, Neal Rijkenberg, or government, must rest assured that the members of the fund will take legal action against him and the executive arm of government. Currently, the PSPF is under Category A.

Minister Maseko made the now controversial statement in Parliament during the Public Service quarterly performance report debate by the Senate Portfolio Committee. They were particularly debating the categorisation of the PSPF. A Category A enterprise is a parastatal that government has full control over. Motions and resolutions were made in Parliament regarding the categorisation of the PSPF. Over 200 members of the Swaziland Public Service Pensioners’ Association (SPSPA) marched from the Coronation Park to deliver petitions to the two ministries. In the petition directed to Minister Maseko, the pensioners alleged that the minister was referring to them as ‘bafokatana’.

They stated that an honest apology, delivered with humility by Maseko, should be documented and furnished to them through the SPSPA national executive committee (NEC) within seven days, failing which they will take further action. Presenting the concerns directed to the Ministry of Public Service, SPSPA President Elliot Mkhatshwa stated that following the minister’s statement, a resolution to march and deliver a petition was taken.

Grievance

Mkhatshwa stated that as SPSPA members, they expect and demand that Maseko, as the line minister for PSPF, should at all times be thoroughly familiar with the historical background of the fund. He accused the minister of deliberately playing politics and ignoring their outcry and grievance, yet it is all in the legislation. The president stated that they are basing their demands for the re-categorisation of the fund on the Public Service Pensions Order of 1993, the Retirement Funds Act of 2005, the Finacial Srvices Regulatory Authority (FSRA) Act of 2010 and other important documents. He said the minister should desist from working against them and cooperate if contentious issues are to be expeditiously resolved. This, he said, is necessary to achieve a win-win outcome in their engagement with the minister.

Meanwhile, from the Minister of Finance, Rijkenberg, the pensioners demanded the implementation of the 2015/2016 and 2018/2019 Parliament decisions to re-categorise the PSPF from Category A to Category B as per the Public Enterprise Unit (PEU) Act, 1989. Mkhatshwa said the bone of contention, or source of their outcry with the Ministry of Finance, is the categorisation of the  PSPF under Category A, which is a violation of the Public Service Pensions Order of 1993, which established the pension scheme as a fund.  This is confirmed by the investigative Parliament report of 2015/2016. He said; “The major question to ask here is why are you stubbornly defiant towards us, and even worse still, to the oversight structure of government and Parliament?”

Mkhatshwa stated that for them as pensioners, the fund is their livelihood, and because of the minister’s continuous defiance, the SPSPA members decided to deliver the petition. He noted that the PSPF, from its inception in 1993 until 2014, operated independently and smoothly for about 21 years, without any complaint or outcry from members. “During this period, the PSPF was neither a Category A nor a Category B entity or parastatal, confirming that it was not established as a government-owned parastatal.” Mkhatshwa clarified that it was established as an independent fund or company, sourcing its income from each public servant’s five per cent and government’s obligatory contribution of 15 per cent. This, he said, was a contribution that had to be legally invested to grow the pension scheme for public servants and not for government.

Assets

According to Mkhatshwa, all the fund’s assets belong to the members - active public servants and former public servants (pensioners) - as per the Public Service Pensions Order of 1993. He stated that the fund is still closely monitored by the Board of Trustees, and, over and above this legal structure, from the year 2010, the FSRA Act of 2010 came into force. The president further stated that the legal structure (FSRA) is mandated to monitor closely all PSPF’s operations more effectively and efficiently than the PEU, with its political clout.
Mkhatshwa concluded that SPSPA members are pursuing this thorny issue, demanding that the Ministry of Finance implement the Parliament decisions of 2015/2016 and 2019/2020 respectively.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: