LOBAMBA – The Select Committee that investigated the genesis of the impasse that has rendered the ENPF Board dysfunctional for more than half a year has recommended a reconfiguration of the Board.
This is according to the committee’s report, which was tabled in Parliament yesterday and is yet to be debated and approved by members of Parliament (MPs).
The committee’s primary recommendation is that the minister for Labour and Social Security should, within seven days of the report’s adoption by the House, reconstitute the ENPF Board to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the ENPF Order No. 23 of 1974, as amended in 1995.
In particular, the committee recommended that the minister regularise the composition of the Board by nullifying the current appointment of the chairperson, noting that the position under which he was appointed, on the basis of ‘specialised skills’, has no statutory basis under the governing legislation.
The report further recommends that the minister designate a chairperson from among the duly constituted Board members in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the First Schedule of the ENPF Order, while adhering to the long-established tripartite governance convention under which the chairpersonship rotates among government, employers and employees.
The committee also called on Parliament to expedite consideration of the Eswatini National Pension Fund (ENPF) Bill, 2025, recommending that it be enacted during the Third Session of the current Parliament.
According to the report, the proposed legislation should address the governance shortcomings exposed during the inquiry by clarifying the identity of the responsible minister, entrenching tripartite participatory governance, formalising the rotational chairpersonship, strengthening the nomination and appointment process, introducing mandatory fit-and-proper assessments before appointments, establishing mechanisms for resolving appointment disputes and aligning the Fund’s governance framework with modern corporate governance standards.
The inquiry stems from a resolution adopted by the House of Assembly on June 8, 2026, through Motion of Urgent Public Importance No. 01/2026.
The motion established a seven-member select committee to investigate the circumstances that had left the ENPF Board unable to function effectively for more than six months.
The committee was tasked with engaging all relevant stakeholders, including the minister for Labour and Social Security and the Fund’s recognised social partners, before submitting its findings and recommendations to Parliament.
During its hearings, committee members raised concerns regarding the appointment of the current chairperson.
Evidence presented before the committee indicated that the chairperson was reportedly a respondent in ongoing legal proceedings instituted by the Fund over the alleged non-remittance of statutory contributions by a company with which he was associated.
Concern
Members expressed concern that such circumstances could create potential conflicts of interest and undermine public confidence in the governance of the Fund.
The committee noted that the matter required further evidence from other stakeholders who appeared before it.
After considering oral and documentary evidence from witnesses and examining the applicable legal framework, the committee concluded that the immediate cause of the governance impasse was the appointment of the current chairperson.
While the minister for Labour and Social Security maintained that the ENPF Order vested him with the authority to appoint both the chairperson and deputy chairperson, recognised social partners argued that, although the minister retained the legal power of appointment, the chairpersonship had historically rotated among the three principal constituencies represented on the Board: government, employers and employees.
The committee, according to the report, found ample evidence that previous ministers had consistently exercised their statutory powers in line with this rotational arrangement.
Documentary evidence, including historical correspondence from the former Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions and previous Board records, confirmed that the rotational principle had become an established governance convention over many years.
The report notes that although the current minister exercised his statutory authority, he departed from this long-established practice by appointing a chairperson at a time when, according to the rotational arrangement, it was not government’s turn to assume the chairpersonship.
The committee concluded that this departure triggered the current impasse.
It further found that the appointment of the current chairperson on the basis of ‘specialised skills’ lacked legal foundation, as neither the ENPF Order nor its First Schedule provides for the appointment of Board members under such a category.
The committee also found that all recognised social partners remained firmly opposed to any arrangement in which the chairperson is appointed from outside the constituencies represented on the Board.
It noted that stakeholders regarded the rotational principle not merely as an informal practice but as a governance convention that had evolved over time to preserve trust, confidence and balance within the Fund’s tripartite governance structure.
Report
According to the report, such a long-standing governance practice should not have been abandoned without prior consultation and consensus among the affected stakeholders.
The committee further observed that administrative practices consistently applied over many years, and which command stakeholder confidence, ought to be formalised through legislation or another binding legal instrument to ensure certainty and continuity.
In reaching this conclusion, the committee relied on Article 72 of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 102 on Minimum Standards of Social Security, which recognises the importance of participation by representatives of protected persons in the management of social security institutions.
The report states that meaningful participation by government, employers and employees in the governance of the ENPF is a fundamental governance principle rather than merely an administrative arrangement.
Dispute
The committee also found that weaknesses within the ENPF Order itself contributed significantly to the governance dispute.
It concluded that the legislation, originally enacted in 1974 and amended in 1995, no longer adequately reflects the current structure of government.
The report states that amendments introduced in 1995 expanded the minister’s appointment powers without comprehensively addressing how future restructuring of government ministries would affect the legislation.
As a result, references in the law to the ‘minister responsible for Labour and Public Service’ and the ‘minister for Local Administration’ have created uncertainty following changes to ministerial portfolios, leading to conflicting interpretations regarding the lawful appointing authority.
The committee further examined the involvement of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in the appointment process and found that there was no legal basis for the ministry’s participation in constituting the Board.
Evidence before the committee showed that the minister for Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that he had neither personally nominated Board member Derrick Shiba nor issued any written instrument confirming such a nomination.
He testified that he only accepted responsibility following Cabinet approval and later sought legal advice from the Attorney General after discovering that Shiba had been identified as the ministry’s nominee without his knowledge.
Shiba, the report states, also informed the committee that he regarded his appointment as having been made by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and confirmed that he had never been nominated by, or engaged with, the minister for Housing and Urban Development regarding his appointment.
The committee therefore concluded that the Housing and Urban Development Ministry had no statutory role in constituting the ENPF Board and that its purported involvement unnecessarily complicated an already contentious appointment process.
It further stressed that appointments to statutory bodies must always be supported by clear legal authority and appropriate documentary instruments to avoid uncertainty and disputes over their validity.
Leave a comment