Allexer Namundjembo
Finance Minister, Iipumbu Shiimi’s submission on Rule Amendment Five, which limits pension benefits for young MPs, was criticised by the Popular Democratic Movement’s (PDM) member of parliament, Hidipo Hamata.
Hamata called it discriminatory against those under the age of 55 or those who served less than five years.
In his questions to Shiimi in parliament on Tuesday, Hamata expressed concern that young parliamentarians, who did not serve a full term, would not be treated equally, solely because of their age.
‘’When will you address the concerns raised by the current pension structure and ensure that younger Members of Parliament who have served equal time receive equal pension entitlements, in line with the constitutional principles of fairness and justice?’’ Hamata asked.
When contacted for clarity, Hamata explained to Windhoek Observer that his concerns stem from the belief that the amendments brought forward by the finance minister on Tuesday are against the constitutional provisions of fairness.
“The Constitution opposes discrimination against anyone. Imagine being sworn in as an MP alongside someone who is 55. Even if you both serve the same three years, the older person will receive a life pension, while I won’t get anything. Plus, the government doesn’t add anything to my pension just because I’m young. Is Parliament only meant for older people? Why is there discrimination against young MPs?” Hamata questioned.
Hamata expressed his disappointment, stating that the amendments were supposed to address the issue of inequality but fell short.
He added that the amendments tabled in Parliament by Shiimi do not address the inequality alleged by Hamata.
However, the minister presented amendments requiring pensioners to provide proof of existence, such as an annual certificate of existence, to confirm whether they are alive and ensure pension payments are made to the correct individual.
Questions sent to Shiimi were not answered.
Windhoek Observer sought to confirm with the minister whether the concerns raised by Hamata are valid and whether his office has plans to amend the rules to resolve the inequality.
The Members of Parliament and Other Office-Bearers Pension Fund Act No. 20 of 1999 outlines specific eligibility criteria for pension benefits, which can result in disparities among members.
Notably, the Act stipulates that only members who have completed a full term of service are entitled to pension benefits. This means that MPs who serve less than the required term do not qualify for the same benefits as their longer-serving counterparts.
The Act mandates that MPs contribute a portion of their salary to the pension fund, with the government providing a matching contribution.
However, concerns have been raised that the government’s contributions do not adequately cover younger MPs or those who have served partial terms, leading to perceived inequities in the distribution of benefits.
These provisions have raised issues regarding fairness, especially for younger MPs or those who enter Parliament mid-term, as they may not receive the same pension benefits as those who serve full terms.
Furthermore, the pension fund discriminates against MPs who entered Parliament through legal processes.
The courts have ruled in cases such as Tjirare v. ECN that those affected must be recognised as MPs from 20 March 2020.
Despite this legal recognition, the pension fund does not fully accommodate them, thereby depriving them of the full benefits they deserve.
