MBABANE – The High Court has granted an interim order halting the inauguration and public announcement of the newly-constituted Eswatini National Provident Fund (ENPF) Board.
The order comes hardly a day after Labour and Social Security Minister Phila Buthelezi announced the Board at SibaneSami Hotel. The order was issued following an urgent application by business and labour federations challenging the appointment process.
It came amid a dispute over the exclusion of two nominees and the appointment of the Principal Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Makhosini Mndawe, to the Board.
The application was filed by the Federation of Eswatini Business Community (FESBEC), Themba Dlamini, Business Eswatini, Nathi Dlamini and the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA).
The respondents include Minister Buthelezi, Simon Khumalo, the Business Federation of Eswatini, the attorney general and the ENPF.
The applicants want the minister’s decisions relating to the nomination and appointment of the disputed Board members reviewed and set aside.
Their application centres on three decisions: The exclusion of FESBEC nominee Themba Dlamini, the rejection of Business Eswatini nominee E. Nathi Dlamini and the appointment of Mndawe as a Board member.
The applicants contend that the decisions were irregular and inconsistent with the arrangements governing representation of employers’ organisations on the Board.
In their urgent application, they initially sought an interim interdict preventing the minister from inaugurating or publicly announcing the Board pending the final determination of their review application.
According to the affidavit, the applicants received electronic notification late on Tuesday evening, October 27, 2026, that the Board was due to be inaugurated and/or publicly announced at SibaneSami Hotel at 10am the following day.
The notification followed a Cabinet resolution taken earlier that Tuesday afternoon. The applicants argued that the short notice left them with insufficient time to approach the court through the ordinary review process before the planned event.
They maintained that the matter was urgent because the Board could be inaugurated and begin making decisions before the court had considered the legality of the decisions they were challenging.
The applicants further argued that an ordinary court process could take approximately three months. They said allowing the disputed appointments to stand in the meantime could prejudice their interests and complicate the implementation of any order eventually granted in their favour.
They, therefore, approached the court for interim relief while seeking a substantive review of the minister’s decisions.
One of the central issues in the application is the alleged failure to follow a rotational arrangement for nominations by employers’ federations.
According to FESBEC CEO Ben Simelane, the applicants contend that there was an established convention under which employers’ federations took turns to nominate representatives to the ENPF Board.
FESBEC maintains that it was its turn to nominate a representative to the new Board but alleges that the minister instead invited the Business Federation of Eswatini to submit a nomination.
Simelane alleged that FESBEC was consequently denied an opportunity to exercise what it regards as its nomination entitlement.
The dispute is linked to the previous Board, which was appointed around November 2025 and subsequently dissolved by an instrument dated July 29, 2026, following a parliamentary inquiry into irregularities in the appointment of some Board members, including the chairperson.
According to the applicants, the previous Board had not held its inaugural meeting, undergone induction or commenced substantive work before it was dissolved.
“The previous Board’s short existence should not be treated as a completed term of office for purposes of determining whether their nominees were eligible for appointment to the succeeding Board,” said Simelane.
The applicants’ argument is that the circumstances surrounding the previous Board’s appointment and dissolution must be considered when assessing the eligibility of the nominees and the decisions taken in constituting the new Board.
The second dispute concerns the rejection of Nathi Dlamini, who was nominated by Business Eswatini. According to the founding affidavit, Business Eswatini was invited to submit two nominees for consideration for appointment to the Board. It nominated Dlamini and Tokky Hou.
The minister accepted Hou’s nomination, but rejected Dlamini’s nomination on the basis that he had already served the maximum of three consecutive terms.
Business Eswatini disputes the basis for that decision. Simelane argues that the previous Board should not count as a completed term because it was dissolved before holding its inaugural meeting, undergoing induction or beginning its substantive work. They are, therefore, challenging the decision to treat Dlamini as having exhausted the permitted number of consecutive terms and want the court to review and set it aside.
The third issue concerns the appointment of Mndawe, who serves as PS in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
The applicants acknowledge that the First Schedule to the Eswatini National Provident Fund Order of 1974 provides for the appointment of two public officers to the board.
However, they argue that Mndawe’s appointment raised concerns because of his responsibilities as the ministry’s principal secretary and his proposed role in the governance of the fund.
According to the founding affidavit, the ministry deals with administrative and policy matters concerning ENPF, including matters that may require ministerial consideration or approval.
The applicants contend that Mndawe could participate in Board deliberations and decisions on matters that might subsequently be considered, processed or dealt with by the ministry in which he holds an executive position.
They argue that this arrangement creates a potential structural conflict of interest by bringing the fund’s Board responsibilities and the ministry’s administrative and oversight functions into the hands of the same office-holder, risking the compromise of the distinction between the Board’s governance role and the ministry’s responsibilities.
They are seeking an order reviewing and setting aside Mndawe’s appointment, which they challenge on grounds, including alleged irrationality, irregularity and inconsistency with sound corporate governance principles. The veracity of these allegations remains subject to determination in the review proceedings, and the respondents are yet to file answering papers.
The applicants are represented by Siphamandla Simelane of Robinson Bertram. The matter is pending in court.
