Joint meeting: SATBVC State Committee petition on pension redress

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

Chairperson Maswanganyi welcomed the attendees, and said he would be co-chairing the meeting with Mr De Villiers. Before proceeding to item three on the agenda -- the briefings by the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) and Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) -- he suggested allowing stakeholders approximately 30 minutes to make brief remarks or presentations before government institutions provided their input. He then invited the stakeholders to proceed with their presentations, requesting that they provide an overview of the matter at hand before allowing government institutions to respond.

Mr Thobile Ndabambi, Chairperson: South African Transkei-Venda-Bophuthatswana-Ciskei (SATVBC) states, introduced his team and expressed gratitude to the Committees for the opportunity to present their case.

He said that their concerns were centred on three main issues:

1. Pensions contributed before 1 May 1996, prior to the establishment of the current system;
2. Pension redress, which he believed fell under the responsibility of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and its partners, including the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), the Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA), and the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC); and
3. Leave gratuity, as pension years prior to 1996 were not considered, leading to the loss of accumulated leave days upon exiting the service.

They sought clarity on the government's progress in investigating these matters, and expected an update on the findings and next steps. He also emphasised the importance of establishing a task team to address these concerns, and requested that representatives from their group be included in that team to ensure their involvement in decision-making.

Mr Nndwamato Themeli, Secretary General and Venda Representative: SATBVC States, added that their primary concern was the lack of involvement in discussions concerning pensions for former TBVC states and territories. They had seen reports purportedly issued by the task team, which had been established following the President's announcement in February 2023. However, in their view, these reports were based on misinformation.

He expressed concern that they, as affected parties, were not consulted, despite the President's commitment to their inclusion in the task team. He reiterated their demand to be represented in discussions impacting their pensions, stating that decisions should not be made without direct engagement with pensioners.

He acknowledged reports indicating concerns over the costs associated with task team operations, but argued that if expenses were incurred for government-appointed members, the same should apply to their representatives. He concluded by stating that they did not intend to disrupt the process, but wished to engage constructively. They sought an opportunity to review the task team’s reports and provide input, rather than having their concerns addressed by individuals who were not directly affected.

Mr Stephen Sass, Vice Chairperson: SATBVC, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to engage with the Committees, stating that they had been pursuing this matter since 2019 and had been repeatedly referred from one institution to another. Meetings had been cancelled or postponed, and COVID-19 had further delayed progress. He emphasised that they represented approximately 400 000 former civil servants who had served between 1961 and 1998, many of whom were now struggling financially or had passed away without resolution.

He reiterated their request to be included in the task team, stating that they had sent extensive correspondence to various committees, ministers, and Parliament, but had not received a definitive response. He stressed their willingness to engage, and highlighted the importance of addressing issues arising from the PSCBC Resolution 7 of 1998.

Mr Matjila reaffirmed their appreciation for being invited to present their case to Parliament. They had initially believed the pension redress system would rectify past injustices, but instead they had been excluded from key resolutions addressing the matter. He expressed hope that they would not be marginalised once again, even after making their submissions in person.

Chairperson Maswanganyi thanked the presenters, noting that their input provided important context for the discussion. He then handed over to Co-Chairperson De Villiers to proceed with item three and the subsequent agenda items.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers appreciated the Committee’s willingness to hold a joint meeting to address the petition from former government employees regarding their pensions. He expressed hope that collaboration between the two Committees and relevant stakeholders would lead to a successful resolution of the issues raised in the petition.

He provided background on the petition, noting that it had been referred to the Committee on Public Service and Administration in the Sixth Parliament, but had remained unresolved. The current Committee had re-engaged on 28 October 2024, but could only partially address the matter due to the absence of key stakeholders, including the GPAA and the GEPF. Given the complexity of the issue, the Committee deemed it necessary to work alongside the Finance Committee and the relevant stakeholders. He then invited the GEPF to commence their presentation.

Government Employees Pension Fund

 Mr Frans Baleni, Chairperson: GEPF, introduced himself and his colleagues, and said that representatives from the GPAA would introduce themselves before their respective presentations. He then handed over to the Principal Officer to lead the presentation.

Mr Musa Mabesa, Principal Executive Officer: GEPF, provided an overview of the Fund’s handling of pension matters related to former TBVC states. He explained the legal framework governing the processing of pensions, and provided historical context on the previous administrators, including Sanlam, Alexander Forbes, and Old Mutual. He then handed over to the CEO of the GPAA to elaborate on the administration of these funds.

See attached

Government Pensions Administration Agency

 Ms Kedibone Madiehe, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): GPAA, presented on the historical context of the former TBVC pension funds. She outlined the background and current status of these funds, explaining that the presentation was structured to first provide a high-level overview of the amalgamation process, and then detail the administration of these pension schemes. The second part of the presentation focused on past discriminatory practices and the pension redress process. She said the presentation would also address contributions, pension redress, and the processes followed by DPSA and the PSCBC.

Ms Esti De Wit, Legal Head: GPAA, presented on the pension redress programme. She covered Resolution 7 of 1998, the background of further resolutions, the implementation process, and the overall conclusion.

See attached

Discussion

 Co-Chairperson De Villiers opened the floor for deliberations, explaining that in the Public Service and Administration Committee, Members were given the opportunity to speak sequentially rather than raising their hands. He encouraged brevity, and acknowledged that Members could indicate if their points had already been covered.

Mr M Lekganyane (ANC) suggested that the meeting first allow the SATBVC stakeholders to respond to the presentation before Members proceeded with their inputs.

The Co-Chairperson agreed, stating that this approach would provide better context for the discussion. He invited the stakeholders to make remarks on the presentations, requesting them to introduce themselves before speaking.

Stakeholder input

 Mr Ndabambi introduced himself and expressed his preference for standing while addressing the Committee due to the sensitivity of the matter. He began by thanking the presenters, but asserted that the information provided had been inaccurate.

He raised concerns regarding pensions from former homelands and the Republic of South Africa (RSA), stating that former employees had been informed by the GEPF that their contributions were recognised only from 1 May 1996 onwards, despite actuarial reports reflecting employment dates as early as 1980. He argued that contributions made before 1996 were not accounted for in pension payouts.

Regarding the pension redress programme, he claimed that it was never properly advertised. He questioned which towns, particularly in the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, were visited for awareness campaigns. He further alleged that funds allocated for the redress programme had originated from employees’ contributions, rather than separate government funding.

He criticised the role of the PSCBC, stating that unions were given control over the pension redress process without consulting the affected employees. Consequently, many individuals who had been discriminated against were excluded from compensation. He argued that pension redress funds had been misallocated, benefiting individuals who had never contributed to the scheme while excluding those who had.

He emphasised the severe impact on pensioners, many of whom had passed away without receiving their entitled benefits. He cited cases where former government employees were denied pension payments by the GEPF, but were simultaneously ineligible for social grants due to their employment history. He urged Parliament to intervene, calling on the GEPF to disclose data on how many pensioners had been compensated and the amounts paid.

Lastly, he raised concerns about the actions of the GEPF Ombudsman, Adv Ramabulane, who had issued forms for "unclaimed monies" in 2021. He alleged that this process had misled pensioners and allowed individuals to exploit the situation by selling forms. He recalled a meeting with the Ombudsman, during which it was agreed that a proposal would be submitted to the GEPF board to address pension-related concerns. However, instead of following through, the Ombudsman proceeded with the unclaimed monies initiative.

He concluded by reiterating that the pension redress programme had failed to compensate the rightful beneficiaries, many of whom had been historically disadvantaged. He urged Parliament to ensure that the affected pensioners received the compensation they were owed.

Mr Themeli said he had listened to the reports presented, and expressed his disappointment that the discussion before Parliament appeared to be a contestation. He remarked that Parliament was now expected to decide who was right or wrong, whereas, from the outset, the parties involved could have worked together to find a solution that did not place Parliament in a difficult position. He found it unfortunate that those who had compiled the reports perhaps did not consider it fit to collaborate with them, as there had been no need for such contestation. However, he would proceed with his comments on the reports submitted.

He began by referring to what Mr Ndabambi had mentioned regarding redress, stating that the presenters had not informed Parliament about the jurisdiction of the PSCBC, which was established through Resolution 7 of 1998. He explained that the PSCBC’s mandate was limited to people working within the Public Service Commission (PSC), and could deal only with matters relating to that category of people. He asserted that it was incorrect to claim that the PSCBC had jurisdiction over the matter or responsibility to inform pensioners. He further stated that if the matter had been properly discussed, the GPAA would have realised that they had made a significant mistake by engaging with individuals who were not meant to be part of the discussion on redress, while excluding those who were actually affected by the redress programme.

Mr Themeli emphasised that, although it was difficult for him, he had to state that the claim that consultations had taken place was untrue. He maintained that the PSCBC had not specifically consulted with them, as its mandate was limited to its constituency. While the PSCBC may have conducted roadshows or public participation processes, he argued that these engagements were only directed at its members, and not at them. He remarked that, as people who were no longer employed, they would have taken an interest in any matter involving finances and would have attended such engagements had they been invited. However, this did not occur.

He reiterated that it was unfortunate that the presenters were before Parliament to provide answers when what was needed were solutions. He asserted that solutions could be reached only if all parties worked together. He also found it unfair that Parliament had been given information that was not true. He clarified that they were not accusing anyone, but were rather pointing out that the other parties had failed to collaborate with them to reach an amicable solution. He therefore called for reconsideration.

He said that if the presenters continued to submit reports that were inaccurate, it would suggest an intention to disadvantage the affected people. He asserted that they did not want to be disadvantaged. He then referred to the historical context of previous pension funds, noting that he was from Venda, and had been closely involved in the payout process there. The information presented regarding the Venda Pension Fund was incorrect. He explained that the payouts in Venda were meant to occur in two phases, with the first phase being implemented when the Fund was fully funded. However, after the first payouts, it had been realised -- as indicated in the proclamations from Venda at the time -- that the formula used had not achieved the intended outcome. Consequently, a second payment had been planned, but it was never implemented due to subsequent developments.

He highlighted that the fact that a second payment had been planned meant that even for those who had already been paid, their funds remained within the Pension Fund. He further pointed out that at the time of the reincorporation or amalgamation of the Venda Pension Fund, the Fund was still 75% funded. He acknowledged that he was not an expert in pension fund matters, but believed that the funding level of a pension fund was also influenced by the number of its members. If the Fund had been reported as being 75% funded, he believed this had been determined after considering the number of members in the Fund.

He said that if the parties had sat down together, these issues could have been raised as allegations, and the other parties would have had the opportunity to either confirm or refute them. He therefore argued that they were appearing before Parliament to state that the process had not been conducted correctly, whereas the other parties were claiming the opposite. To summarise the matter, he asserted that the GEPF and the GPAA needed to acknowledge that they had disregarded the President’s instruction to establish a task team that included all relevant parties to resolve the matter once and for all. He stressed that they needed to admit that they had ignored this directive, leading to a situation where the issue was now being contested before Parliament.

Mr Themeli called on Parliament to formally record that the officials tasked with resolving the matter had not followed the correct process. He further proposed that they be given the opportunity to engage with the affected persons. He acknowledged that some of their claims might be incorrect, but he insisted that, until they were proven otherwise, they would remain valid concerns. He argued that the issue should not be about competing voices before Parliament, but rather about sitting together to resolve the matter.

He maintained that, for as long as the officials refused to consult with the affected persons, these issues would persist, and people would remain dissatisfied. He questioned why the GPAA and GEPF had found it difficult to engage with the affected individuals, who had contributed their own money to the pension fund. He asked why it was so difficult for the administrators to meet with them when concerns had been raised about the mismanagement of their funds. He said that the institutions needed to explain to Parliament why they were unwilling to engage with the affected persons.

He concluded by stating that all they sought from Parliament was an instruction for the officials to sit with the affected individuals, establish a timeline, and submit a report on the resolution of the matter. He warned that, without such an approach, Parliament would continue to be the stage for contestation, and the matter would never be brought to a proper resolution.

Similarly, Mr Sass stated that the GEPF had abdicated its responsibility to the PSCBC, as pensioners had not been represented there. He pointed out that the PSCBC represented only unions and employees still in service, while pensioners had not been included. He argued that the GEPF had relinquished its responsibility and that, when contacted, it had failed to provide answers to important questions.

He asserted that while the presenters had made several errors, the PSCBC had committed even more mistakes. He said the PSCBC had disregarded aspects of its own Resolution 7 of 1998. He then raised three key points. First, he questioned how the PSCBC had allocated 1% of the pension fund’s reserves to finance the redress programme without first determining how much funding was required. He pointed out that according to the GEPF’s own records, there had been 450 000 pensioners in 1998, yet only 157 000 had applied for redress. He argued that if people had been aware of the available funds, they would have applied. He attributed the low application rate to the poor advocacy programme in 1998.

He further stated that the government had access to pensioners’ personal information, and should have contacted them directly instead of conducting a vague public awareness campaign. He noted that only 54 000 pensioners had ultimately been compensated. He argued that all qualifying pensioners should have been compensated, as discrimination had occurred based on race, gender, physical status, and employment status.

He also pointed out that they had been raising these issues since 2020. He recalled that, in that year, they had submitted a petition to Parliament, and the parliamentarians had consulted their advisers. However, instead of engaging with them directly, the advisers presented their findings in a meeting where the petitioners were only allowed to listen without participation. He expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the advisers had not followed up with them to communicate their findings.

He said they had attempted to engage with the GEPF, GPAA and PSCBC through various platforms, including television and radio, yet they had consistently been dismissed. He maintained that the majority of affected individuals had been excluded from redress, and emphasised the need for a meeting between all relevant parties.

He reiterated that many things had been done incorrectly, and thousands of affected pensioners depended on their advocacy. He himself had been a civil servant who had taken a severance package in 1997, just before 1998, yet he had been told that he did not qualify for redress. He asserted that he did qualify, and that all those who had worked before 1998 were entitled to redress in one way or another.

He concluded by appealing to Parliament not to disregard the concerns of pensioners and to engage directly with those affected, rather than relying solely on reports from institutions that had not been present when the injustices took place.

Mr Matjila emphasised that they were representing thousands of people who were suffering, had lost hope, and had nowhere to turn for assistance. Referring to a statement in the conclusion of the presentation that existing members were being paid correctly and on time, he remarked that he might agree with it, but only because the current practice was a result of self-correction following a public outcry. He asserted that the corrective measures were long overdue and that, in the meantime, many had suffered, while others continued to do so due to not having received their full pension funds or any pension redress at all.

Reflecting on past events, he recalled a two-day conference held in 2016 at the Morula Sun in North West Province, with the GEPF and Sefalana Employee Benefits Organisation (SEBO). This engagement had occurred only after persistent efforts and appeals. During this conference, the GEPF, led by a director named Phiri, had disclosed that there was an amount of R1 trillion in the Fund, which was awaiting claimants. However, they did not know where to begin or how to proceed. SEBO, under the leadership of its principal, Mr Masilo, had informed them that there were more than 18 000 individuals whose money was being held, but the rightful owners were unknown.

He further recounted that Mr Masilo had explained that his office had been mandated through a tender from Alexander Forbes, the pension administrator, to collect data on the beneficiaries. This exercise took place over two to three months, during which individuals visited SEBO's offices, which were located near the Department of Education in Mahikeng. However, the payments made to some individuals were inexplicable, as some had received only R1 000 or R1 500, with no clarity on what these amounts represented. Out of approximately 10 000 claimants, fewer than 40 had received payments, which he regarded as an indication that the GEPF and GPAA had responded to their grievances only recently, possibly as a means of avoiding scrutiny. He suggested that these entities had been working to conceal the truth for years and that, as financial experts, they had the advantage of managing the process in a manner that marginalised the claimants.

Mr Matjila declared that the presentation that had been made was completely unacceptable. He argued that government officials had access to resources that the claimants did not, which allowed them to conduct processes in a manner that excluded those affected. He therefore urged Parliament to investigate the matter further, particularly concerning the criteria used to calculate pension entitlements. He said that SATBVC members had initially fought for their pensions independently in different provinces before realising that they shared a common struggle. As a result, they repeatedly sought assistance from Parliament and political leaders, but the GEPF remained unresponsive.

He recounted that their efforts to engage with the GEPF had been met with hostility, as they had been threatened and, on some occasions, removed by security personnel when visiting the offices. He insisted that the matter was long overdue and that had the GEPF acted with fairness and integrity, it would not have been necessary to escalate it to Parliament. He accused the GEPF of fabricating its presentation, and argued that each official involved knew in their hearts that it lacked truth, as people continued to suffer due to the Fund’s inaccessibility and inefficiencies.

In conclusion, he supported Mr Themeli’s assertion that there had been no roadshows conducted to inform claimants about pension redress processes. He argued that consultations had taken place only with a select few and that when presenting to Parliament, the GEPF had falsely claimed that the issue had been fully addressed. He questioned the validity of this claim by highlighting that out of 100 claimants, only two or three had been paid. As an example, he cited military veterans in North West who had submitted applications for their pension benefits. He said that out of 200 approved applicants, only small groups of 10 or 15 were being paid every few months, with no clear explanation as to why payments were staggered in this manner.

He reiterated that there were numerous irregularities within the GEPF and the GPAA, and pleaded with Parliament to investigate the truth behind the financial mismanagement that was affecting the most vulnerable citizens. He stressed that the broader context of financial corruption in South Africa was well known, and that the mismanagement of pension funds was yet another example of how government officials were squandering money.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers thanked them for their input and acknowledged the frustration that had been expressed. He then invited Members to make remarks and ask questions.

Discussion

 Mr B Molefe (MK) said the core of the issue lay in the broader problem of reparations in South Africa. He said the matter was directly linked to the inequalities that had resulted from past policies. He referred to a law passed in 1998 that mandated the amalgamation of all pension funds, including those of the former TBVC states. He questioned whether employees who had worked in Bophuthatswana for ten years on a salary of R100 000 were receiving the same pension benefits as those who had worked for the same period under the former Republic of South Africa.

He noted that the presentation had not clarified whether all pension funds had been defined benefit funds, or whether some had been defined contribution funds. He presumed that they had all been defined benefit funds, but pointed out that the assets of TBVC pension funds had been absorbed into the fiscus, where they had been used to fund infrastructure projects. As a result, he questioned whether an exercise had been conducted to compare the benefits of individuals entering the GEPF, as they had not all entered under equal circumstances. He raised concerns that some individuals may have been disadvantaged due to the Pension Fund rules that had applied in their respective homelands.

Mr Molefe questioned whether those who had transitioned from the TBVC states into the GEPF had been granted the same benefits as those who had originally been part of the Fund. He sought clarification on whether these individuals had received guarantees that their benefits would match those historically applicable to white South Africans. He expressed a desire to see evidence that a comparative assessment had been conducted, and that any disadvantages had been identified and addressed from the outset in 1998.

He further questioned whether the correct number of years of service had been recorded for all employees when they were incorporated into the GEPF. He explained that in a defined benefit system, the number of years worked was crucial, as it determined eligibility for an annuity. He stated that discrepancies in recorded years of service could result in individuals being treated unfairly. He therefore asked the GEPF and the pension administrators what verification process had been followed to ensure the accuracy of service records, and whether this process had been audited.

He reiterated that the issue stemmed from the differing Pension Fund rules applied across different regions, and asked how these differences had been addressed in policy terms. He sought clarity on whether there had been a standardised approach to handling the pensions of individuals from former homelands such as Bophuthatswana and Venda when they transitioned into the GEPF. He emphasised that he wanted to determine whether there had been consistency in the application of these policies, and whether the process had undergone an independent audit.

Mr Molefe concluded by stating that the discrepancies in pension administration between the GEPF and the TBVC states reflected broader inequalities in the country’s approach to reparations. He asserted that the matter should not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of the larger issue of economic redress in South Africa.

Mr N Hadebe (IFP) said he had just one question to check if the GEPF was aware of the challenges raised by the former members, and whether there had been any roundtable engagement to address these issues. He inquired if the GEPF had made provisions to accommodate these grievances and explain where necessary to the aggrieved former members.

Ms W Tikana-Gxothiwe (ANC) said that she would first like to welcome the presentations while acknowledging the dissatisfaction expressed by the members of the committee. She understood that the matter had been ongoing for more than 12 years, and asked for clear timeframes regarding the closure of the pension matter, which had taken too long. She highlighted that if it had started in 2012 or earlier, with the government beginning the process in the Fifth Administration, the matter would have already extended into the Seventh Administration, which, in her view, was too long. She requested that clear timeframes be provided for finalising the challenges or complaints still in process.

She also asked whether the 2018 cut-off for the pension redress process meant that those pensioners and contributing members who were affected during the tracing process now had no recourse if they had missed the deadline for submitting their applications. She also asked for clarification on whether it was still considered pension redress if individuals had not met the 31 March 2012 cut-off date. She expressed concern about the budgeted amounts and the impact on future budgets if the matter was not concluded soon, as it would result in accrued interest due to delays.

She requested clarification on the process for tracing claimants who could not be located, and whether the GPAA had aligned its processes with the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) to accommodate people who had relocated. She also sought clarity on how claims from deceased individuals were processed, especially those with open estates. She recommended that the Board facilitate a meeting between the relevant stakeholders and the administration to foster better communication and understanding, particularly concerning the monitoring and reassessment of the work being done.

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) said her concern was whether the GPAA and the GEPF viewed the resubmission of claims by pensioners previously paid by the former homelands as fraudulent. She asked how the GPAA and GEPF were dealing with this situation to satisfy both themselves and the affected parties. She referred to Resolution 7 of 1998, and asked if the GPAA and GEPF had ensured they had fulfilled their obligations under this resolution, requesting further details if they had not.

Mr S Sekoati (ANC) said that based on the discussions, it seemed that communication was a primary issue. He also noted that there were grievances regarding recognition, with some individuals feeling misrepresented, particularly in matters placed within the Bargaining Council. He added that there were instances where individuals had been paid benefits they were not entitled to, and pointed out discrepancies between the lists held by the movement and the GPAA, which needed to be reconciled. He asked whether it was possible for both parties to sit down together and compare notes. He mentioned that while the bargaining council was dealing with the matter, it appeared that unresolved issues might need to be returned to the council for further action.

Mr Sekoati stressed the importance of clear communication between beneficiaries and those handling the matter. He acknowledged that the process of transferring from one fund manager to another had been lengthy and complicated, and recognised that this would not be an easy matter to resolve. He further expressed the need to bring the matter to a conclusion, as prolonged delays would only lead to the state incurring additional costs. He also mentioned that transparency was crucial to ensure beneficiaries understood the process and the criteria for receiving benefits. He emphasised that those entitled to benefits needed to be satisfied with the transparency and fairness of the process, as there was a lack of clarity regarding how certain decisions had been made. He noted that there might be more members coming forward, and therefore comparing lists to ensure accurate payments was crucial.

Ms N Gcaleka-Mazibuko (ANC) said that the scars of the apartheid government would take time to fade from the system, as the current situation was a result of those historical injustices. She expressed sympathy for the aggrieved parties, and said that the issue was personal to her, as her father had been a victim of the same injustices. She explained that her father had worked for the City of Johannesburg from the age of 18 but had received nothing upon retirement. He had died poor and was unable to access a South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) grant because he had worked for the state.

She expressed deep empathy for the affected parties, and posed two questions. Firstly, she asked the GPAA whether they had communicated with former members and their families regarding claims that were being made more than once. She inquired whether the GPAA had given reasons for why these individuals might be claiming multiple times. Secondly, she asked the representatives if they were aware of this issue, and whether they were taking steps to address it. She agreed with Ms Xaba-Ntshaba on the need for transparency in the data, emphasising the importance of making the data accessible to members and representatives. She suggested that providing detailed information about when a person started working for the state, when they retired, and how much they had been paid, would help resolve the matter. She said that the lack of transparency was a key obstacle to concluding the matter, and stressed that the sooner it was resolved, the better for the state and the affected families. She also asked about the possibility of privatising the pension fund for Venda, questioning whether privatisation had been an option or if it was a compulsory process. She asked if there were any benefits to privatisation.

Mr T Mwali (MK) pointed out that the chairperson of the stakeholders had mentioned that the redress process had not been communicated to beneficiaries, and asked how the GEPF had communicated the start of the redress programme. He wanted to know if beneficiaries had been informed about the need to apply for the redress, and whether it was available to all affected members. Secondly, he asked if the relevant stakeholders had ever met in a similar setup, as today's meeting included the GEPF, GPAA, the Public Investment Corporation (PIC0 and the Treasury. He wondered if there had been any efforts to bring all the stakeholders together to resolve the matter, as prolonged delays and lack of coordination could lead to wrong beneficiaries being paid. He suggested that clear communication between the Committee and the stakeholders was essential to resolve the matter quickly, as ongoing delays would result in continued financial costs, including interest payments.

Mr D van Rooyen (MK) said that he did not have much of a contribution regarding potential resolutions, but he sought to confirm one matter, as the concept of "tasking" had been extensively used throughout the presentation. He pointed out that, from an oversight perspective, when referring to a task team that was legislatively empowered to execute its mandate, there should be a Gazette or some form of communication addressing matters such as the composition of the task team and who should be informed of the outcome of processes. He explained that the hierarchy of information sharing and accountability should be clearly outlined in the Gazette. Without this, he argued, it was difficult to understand why certain practices were so prevalent, such as the exclusion of complainants' representatives from the process.

He emphasised that South Africa was a participatory democracy, which dictated that complainants could not be left out when attempting to resolve their issues. Democratic principles clearly stated that the involvement of complainants was crucial and that the foundation of the country was built on listening to those affected by problems. He questioned which legislative provision had guided the composition of the task team, and pointed out that if the task team had not involved the representatives of complainants, this raised concerns. He stressed that, as Members of Parliament, they were asked by the complainants to listen to their case and were guided by the principle of participatory democracy.

Mr Van Rooyen expressed confusion about the various task teams under the current administration, referring to a task team dealing with pensions for military veterans. He questioned whether this was the same task team referred to in the presentation. He sought clarification on the legislation guiding this process, stating that as public representatives, they had a duty to hold the process accountable to legislative frameworks, not mere assumptions. He concluded by emphasising the seriousness of the allegations about wrongful pension redress payments, which he stated was a criminal matter. He urged that any information on this matter be brought to the Committee so they could pursue it. He also highlighted concerns regarding the 1% contribution taken from the complainants' members to fund the pension redress process, and requested clarification from the Pension Fund on this allegation, as it appeared to be a serious issue.

Ms O Maotwe (EFF) began by commending the SATBVC for their persistence, bravery, and their stance on fighting for what they believed was right. She also congratulated the newly appointed chairperson of the GEPF, expressing hope that they would resolve the issue with fresh energy. She acknowledged from the presentations that people in South Africa were still suffering from oppression, particularly women who had experienced the triple yoke of oppression during apartheid. She said that the oppression continued, as women were still not receiving what they deserved.

Ms Maotwe raised several concerns, one of which was the CEO of the GPAA’s statement that the Provident Fund could not be amalgamated, only the Pension Fund. She questioned where the money was, and how former workers were receiving their Provident Funds. Echoing Mr Van Rooyen’s concerns about the task team, she questioned the exclusion of the actual complainants from the task team. She found it problematic that the task team, which was supposed to address the issue, had not involved those directly affected by it, namely the former homeland states. She also questioned why the TBVC was not part of the task team when resolving the matter.

Ms Maotwe also highlighted discrepancies in the available Fund, stating that while the presentation mentioned an available Fund of R8.7 billion, the actual amount required was R12.7 billion, leading to a 68% reduction. She expressed frustration that the Fund did not have sufficient money to pay out the full amount owed to contributors, and questioned who was responsible for this shortfall. She pointed out the large gap between the 58 000 people accounted for by the GPAA and the 400 000 people represented by the TBVC, requesting an explanation for the missing 320 000 people. She expressed doubt about the accuracy of the numbers, and insisted on an accounting of these individuals. She also raised concerns about the reliance on data from Alexander Forbes, as it had accounted for only certain homelands and excluded others like Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, and Venda. She asked about the process for dealing with Old Mutual and Sanlam, as well as the administration of SEBO after its lifespan.

She concluded by suggesting that the matter should be placed in the hands of the GEPF to facilitate the resolution process, given the strained relations between the GPAA and the complainants. She proposed that Parliament check the progress of the matter three months later, and emphasised the urgency, as many people were suffering and dying without the benefits they were owed. She acknowledged that her own mother had been a teacher and could be owed money from SEBO, but she stressed that many people were living in poverty, and hoped that the new chairperson would resolve the issue so the marginalised and oppressed could find satisfaction. She reiterated that Parliament stood with the oppressed and would not allow officials to play with people's lives.

Mr M Lekganyane (ANC) expressed his appreciation to both Chairpersons for convening the meeting, noting that it was a "baptism of fire." He said that the Chairpersons would determine a future date for another meeting, at which the parties present would report on how they had addressed the issues raised. He emphasised that the meeting had established a mandate for the parties to return and resolve outstanding matters. He said the CEO appeared to be in agreement that the process had been flawed, as the meeting had been convened before the relevant parties had met amongst themselves. He said that representatives from Bophuthatswana needed to compile a list of all their beneficiaries and, if necessary, involve Alexander Forbes or any other relevant entity to resolve their outstanding issues. He further stressed that the same process should be followed for Transkei, ensuring that all issues were thoroughly addressed before reporting back to the Committee.

Mr Lekganyane also pointed out that the presentation had indicated correlations in the records, with people having been paid, but without clearly outlining the procedure followed. He highlighted that Mr Molefe had raised concerns regarding policy matters and how grievances were being addressed. He stressed the importance of a humane approach when dealing with affected individuals, rather than merely providing a detached explanation. He asserted that gross injustices had taken place, not only against women who had been victimised, but also against broader communities. He urged the Committee to adopt a contextual understanding of these challenges. He added that co-Chairperson De Villiers, as Chairperson of the relevant Portfolio Committee, should closely monitor the process and provide guidance when necessary.

He concluded by stating that the Committee expected a report from the parties once they had worked together and made progress, while also seeking assistance from the Committees in overcoming any remaining obstacles.

Mr A Beesley (Action SA) sought clarity regarding the 53 717 approved cases, questioning whether an increase in the number of cases would result in reduced payouts, given that 68% of the allocated funds had been used. He inquired whether additional claimants would lead to smaller individual payments. He also requested further details on the 18 000 error cases, asking for an explanation of their nature. Furthermore, he sought to ascertain how much of the R8.7 billion allocated had been paid out to date.

Ms S Gcilishe (EFF) asked where the allocated money was, and whether it had been misappropriated. She expressed frustration at the prolonged delays in compensating pensioners, recalling distressing images of elderly people sleeping outside Parliament. She reiterated her question on why it was so difficult to provide pensioners with their rightful payments. She also queried the existence of an oversight mechanism to monitor the GPAA and GEPF regarding the handling of pension records and outstanding claims. In addition, she sought to understand what measures were being considered to address the inefficiencies in processing claims, as well as the accountability of both the GPAA and GEPF. Finally, she requested an explanation regarding the 68.4% reduction factor applied to pension redress payments, and whether there were any plans to review this calculation.

Mr P Ndamase (ANC) reiterated the sentiment raised by complainants that government agencies and complainants should work together to address concerns before returning to the Committee. He seconded this proposal.

Ms L Potgieter (DA) referred to a previous meeting of the Public Service Committee (PSC) in October, where Members had been given a document and asked to make a recommendation to the National Assembly on a petition without having sufficient background information. She expressed gratitude for the current meeting, and the opportunity to engage further on the matter. She stressed the importance of receiving comprehensive presentations with all the necessary information, rather than selective excerpts. She noted that resolutions were available on the DPSA’s website, and emphasised that having the full details of these resolutions would have been beneficial. She pointed out that a separate R200 million allocation had been made for certain aspects of the issue, which further complicated the understanding of the matter.

Ms Potgieter questioned why the signatories to Resolution 3 of 2012 did not include the complainants, and sought clarification on their engagement with the GEPF. She also inquired about a report that was due to the Minister in March 2024, detailing individuals who had not received pension payments. She requested an update on the status of that report. Furthermore, she questioned how claimants had been informed about their payments or non-payments, and whether they had been provided with details of their employment periods and corresponding payouts. She expressed concern that the Committee was being expected to make decisions without clear factual evidence, likening the situation to arbitrating conflicting narratives without substantive proof.

She supported the call for transparency regarding payment timelines and the basis on which payments were declined. She criticised the poor communication regarding evidence, and reiterated the importance of obtaining concrete data. She requested reports from Old Mutual, Sanlam and other entities involved in auditing past payments, to clarify how funds were collected and distributed. She stressed that without access to this evidence, the Committee could not make informed recommendations. She concluded by stating that she would prefer an exhaustive dataset with detailed financial records, rather than a summary that lacked clarity.

Ms W Alexander (DA) expressed gratitude to both parties for providing information. However, she commented on the difficulty in determining where the discrepancies lay. She suggested that an audit be conducted to establish the unresolved claims, the complainants’ dissatisfaction, and the evidence supporting or refuting these grievances. She stressed the need for a clear resolution, particularly in cases where individuals had worked their entire lives but had been struggling for decades to receive their pensions. She proposed that the audit should detail each individual’s benefits and how they were received, arguing that such an approach would facilitate a conclusive resolution to the matter.

She sought clarification on the 1% contribution, stating that she wanted to understand its origin and whether it had come from the organisation’s reserve funds. She inquired about the alternative options that had been considered, suggesting that these might have included increasing employee contributions or seeking additional government loans. However, she acknowledged that taking on further debt was not an ideal solution, as it would place a financial burden on the organisation in the long term. She further asked whether the funds had indeed come from the reserves, and how this decision had impacted employees, particularly regarding the benefits they received from the pension fund.

Ms Xaba-Ntshaba directed a question to the GPAA, asking whether there were any remaining funds that had not yet been distributed to beneficiaries. She said that the entity had claimed to have already made payments to beneficiaries, and sought clarity on whether any unclaimed funds remained. She also inquired about the contingency plan in place to ensure that any outstanding amounts were appropriately redistributed to the rightful beneficiaries.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers then addressed the Members, stating that if there were no further inputs, he wished to make concluding remarks. He observed that there was consensus between the two Committees regarding the need for the GEPF and stakeholders to meet urgently and report back within three months with a proposed way forward. He acknowledged the complexity of the matter, noting that each case was unique, given variations in individuals’ contributions, timelines and personal circumstances. He expressed the hope that a structured procedure could be developed to ensure that individual cases were processed efficiently.

Further, he emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals who believed they were still owed pension funds were directed to the appropriate appeal procedures. He highlighted the existence of oversight bodies such as the Pension Funds Adjudicator, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority  (FSCA) and the Financial Services Tribunal, stressing that it was not sufficient merely to assess claims but also necessary to empower individuals with knowledge of the processes they could follow should they feel that their evidence had not been properly considered. He proposed that unless there were objections, the request from both Committees should be that the GEPF engage with stakeholders and develop a fair and transparent procedure, including an appeal process, to assist affected individuals. He further noted that time was of the essence, as pension-related matters affected individuals’ livelihoods, particularly those who were retired and lacked access to their funds. He urged that the matter be addressed with urgency.

He then handed over to the GEPF to respond to the outstanding questions raised by Members.

GEPF's response

Mr Baleni affirmed that, in line with the directive and the comments made by Members, a meeting between the relevant parties would indeed take place. He confirmed that the three-month timeframe for convening the meeting had been accepted. Stakeholders would be invited to share the data in their possession, while the GEPF would also disclose the information available to it. Consultations with other administrators involved in the process would be undertaken if necessary. He assured Members that following these engagements, a report would be presented to the Committees within the stipulated period. He then invited the GPAA to respond to the detailed questions raised, noting that if discussions extended beyond 13:00, they could be halted at an appropriate point.

Ms Madiehe said she had noted the request for a meeting, and acknowledged that she had not previously engaged with the SATBVC. She clarified that she had been assigned to work on the matter, but agreed that the engagement process could be rectified going forward. However, she emphasised the importance of recognising the Fund’s rules, which dictated which payments were made and which were not, as these were guided by specific regulations.

She acknowledged the concerns raised regarding pensionable service and whether all pensionable years had been accounted for. She explained that in dealing with the TBVC states -- Ciskei, Venda, Transkei, and Bophuthatswana -- varied processes were followed to verify the number of years in service. She outlined that for Ciskei, administrators checked admission to the Fund (Z125), CS files, and other supporting documents. A similar approach was followed for Venda, while for Transkei, the admission Fund records used included the TI-111 or Z125. In the case of Bophuthatswana, the TS-99 or Z125 was referenced, alongside other supporting documentation.

Ms Madiehe confirmed that in some instances, the GPAA had provided proof that required rectification, and where members had presented valid documentation, all services had been accounted for. She assured the Committee that the matter had been thoroughly deliberated between the GPAA, the GEPF, and the GEPF Board. She referred to memoranda written on the issue and noted that the matter could be discussed further within the task teams, where recommendations had been made.

On the issue of communication, she said that an employer representative from the DPSA was present. She reiterated that the GPAA’s role was solely as an implementation and payment partner for the pension redress process, while the DPSA, as the employer, had developed the process in conjunction with the PSCBC. The GPAA had been responsible only for executing the payment instructions, rather than determining the rules or processes.

Regarding payments, she confirmed that they could account for the number of payments made, as these were assessed against the criteria set by the DPSA and the PSCBC. Of the 150 000 cases reviewed, 72 000 had qualified, while 17 000 were initially classified as erroneous. However, upon further review, 5 900 cases (35%) had changed from error to approved status, and had subsequently been paid. Of the remaining cases, 6 300 (37%) were still under review, with ongoing communication with the affected members. In addition, 4 000 cases had been reclassified as not qualifying at all, as supporting documents did not meet the criteria set by the Pension Redress Programme (PDP). She assured the Committee that further details could be provided if required.

On the matter of the Provident Fund not being amalgamated, Ms Madiehe confirmed that contributions had been refunded to employees who had contributed to the Provident Fund, rather than being integrated into the GEPF. She said the Bophuthatswana administration had processed these refunds, and that following SEBO’s dissolution, the Bosele National Provident Fund had taken over certain functions. She clarified that the Bosele National Provident Fund now assisted in tracking records for Bophuthatswana cases, ensuring that there remained a process in place for dealing with these matters.

Ms De Witt added that, based on the questions raised, a significant amount of detail was required to fully address the issues. She suggested that a more comprehensive presentation might be necessary at a future meeting, particularly given that the history of these matters spanned over 30 years. She noted that questions regarding member transfers and benefit consistency were complex, particularly given the processes of upscaling and downscaling when TBVC funds were integrated into the GEPF. She assured the Committee that the transfers had been handled consistently, and that full details would be provided.

Ms De Witt added that transparency remained a priority, and various attempts had been made to provide clarity, including through processes involving the Public Protector. She reiterated the commitment to supplying further details where necessary.

Regarding Venda, she confirmed that privatisation had been an option. She explained that two rounds of privatisation had taken place, and that further historical details would be provided. She acknowledged the complexity surrounding the task teams, and echoed the sentiments of the CEO in distinguishing between the PDP process and the TBVC pension amalgamation. She clarified that the PDP was a separate programme initiated by the employer and implemented through the PSCBC, rather than being directly regulated by legislation. Decisions had been taken through PSCBC resolutions, which were binding within that structure, but complainants were not signatories to these agreements as they were not parties to the PSCBC.

On the question of duplicate applications for the same period, Ms De Witt clarified that such cases were not automatically considered fraudulent. She acknowledged that some applicants might not fully understand the process. She said that communication had been provided to inform them that their applications could not be approved if they had already been paid for the same period or if the period had already been recognised.

Ms De Witt concluded by stating that while the responses provided addressed some of the key concerns, a more detailed submission would be necessary at a later stage. She assured the Committee that further engagement would take place to provide clarity on outstanding issues.

Ms Madiehe said there had been a significant public request, particularly concerning the PDP programme, to reopen the process. She acknowledged the validity of concerns raised regarding inadequate communication and engagement with stakeholders. She explained that the PDP application process had closed in 2012, and as a result, individuals who became aware of the process after that date had been unable to submit applications. She said that the public often approached regional offices with this request, but the GPAA always clarified that the decision to reopen the process did not fall within its mandate. Instead, such a decision would need to be made by the employer and the PSCBC. She suggested that this issue could be reconsidered to accommodate those who had been unaware of the process.

Ms Madiehe also acknowledged concerns regarding the low number of applicants, and suggested that the issue might be linked to the communication strategy implemented at the time. She also noted that several Members had raised questions about payments. She assured them that the GPAA had oversight structures in place, including risk committees that conducted audit command language (ACL) testing scripts to ensure that payments were made to the correct beneficiaries. These oversight structures operated on a quarterly basis. In addition, the AG conducted performance audits on payments to verify their accuracy. She emphasised that the GPAA was required to report to the GEPF and its Board, which monitored the agency's performance and held it accountable. She concluded by stating that the GPAA had addressed the concerns raised, but would engage further, as Mr Badeni had suggested.

Mr Mabesa addressed questions regarding the 1% of reserves, and how it had been determined. He explained that Resolution 7 of the PSCBC had established that the amount to be allocated would be the lesser of 1% of reserves at the time, or the amount required to rectify the years of service affected by discrimination. He confirmed that based on calculations by the administrator, an estimated R12 billion would have been required, but due to the imposed limit of R8.7 billion, only 68% of what was due could be paid. He also clarified that the PSCBC Resolution governed the matter, specifying that the negotiations were strictly between the government and labour. He noted that, as per the GEPF rules, particularly Rule 10(5) and Rule 11(7), pensionable service was to be used in the calculation of benefits, and the PSCBC was responsible for determining the payment amount. He highlighted that the aggrieved parties were not formally represented in the PSCBC process, as it was a negotiation forum between government and labour.

Further discussion

 Ms Potgieter sought clarity on the resolution that had closed the process in 2012. She noted that it had been signed by several individuals, likely including union representatives, though some names were unfamiliar to her. She clarified that she was referring to Resolution 3 of 2012, not Resolution 7, and that this resolution had formally concluded the process, confirming that all eligible individuals had been paid. She expressed her uncertainty regarding the relationship between the complainants and the Department or the Committee, and requested further clarification on their interactions.

Mr Van Rooyen remarked that it was surprising that the structure in question had been primarily driven by the labour movement, yet the grievances had not been identified or addressed by labour representatives. He found it interesting that the labour movement had not taken note of these concerns earlier.

Ms Xaba-Ntshaba inquired about the contingency plans for the remaining unclaimed funds. She sought clarity on how the money would be redistributed.

Mr Molefe suggested that the complainants should also be given an opportunity to make closing remarks.

Mr Sekoati cautioned against assigning responsibilities to the GPAA that did not fall within its mandate. He emphasised that the GPAA was merely an agent reporting to the employer, which meant that the responsibility for convening meetings and engaging with stakeholders lay with the employer. He stressed that the employer needed to take ownership of the process.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers acknowledged that this was an important question. While he was not a pension fund expert, he believed that the responsibility for coordination lay more with the administrator and the Board of trustees. However, he was open to correction and invited officials to conclude their remarks.

GEPF's response

 Ms Madiehe concurred with Mr Sekoati, affirming that the employer was represented by the DPSA. She reiterated that the GPAA’s role was limited to implementing payments. Regarding the unclaimed funds, she explained that the unclaimed benefits pertained to members who could not be located. The GPAA had a separate process for dealing with unclaimed benefits, which included publishing advertisements and providing details on the GEPF website. She assured Members that the money remained available and could be claimed by the rightful beneficiaries. However, she highlighted that the primary challenge was with deceased members, whose beneficiaries needed to step forward. She confirmed that the GPAA would continue efforts to track down beneficiaries and would provide an update on PDP-related unclaimed funds in the next report.

Mr Willie Vukela, Acting Director-General, DPSA, expressed appreciation for the Members’ comments and questions. He described the discussion as progressive, and acknowledged the issues raised as necessary considerations. He urged government colleagues to avoid rhetorical justifications, and recognised that the meeting would not have been necessary if everything had been functioning correctly. He agreed with Mr Baleni's suggestion to regroup and work collaboratively with the aggrieved parties. He admitted that he did not have all the answers, stating that if they did, the meeting would not have taken place.

He emphasised the need to work differently and engage with the aggrieved parties to arrive at a new resolution. He suggested reconvening in three months for a progress check. From the employer’s perspective, he confirmed that collaboration with the GPAA and GEPF would continue, as the matter had been delegated by the President to National Treasury. He stressed that the President’s directive for National Treasury to take the lead should not be overlooked. He also expressed agreement with Mr Themeli’s concerns, stating that he had recorded his submission verbatim in his report. In closing, he described the meeting as highly productive, and commended the Committee for its structured approach.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers expressed his gratitude to all the different individuals involved. He still believed that many of the aggrieved parties could be assisted and that the matter could be resolved. He then invited the stakeholders to make their concluding remarks, after which the meeting would be brought to a close.

Mr Ndabambi said he had only two requests. Firstly, he explained that his executive members had travelled from various locations, and following the meeting, some would need to take buses to their destinations. He provided the example of Mr Themeli, who would be travelling to Musina, near the Zimbabwe border. He therefore requested that the Chairperson consider assisting these members by providing accommodation in Cape Town for the night so that they could engage in further discussions and brainstorming after the session. Secondly, he requested assistance with transportation for members to return to their respective destinations. He added that the chairperson of GEPF would exchange communications with them to ensure that the DPSA had their contact details. He emphasised that, should accommodation be arranged, they would be able to return to the drawing board, review the minutes, and commence work on the matter immediately.

Mr Sass provided clarification regarding the 1% allocation. He explained that the 1% did not originate from the reserves of the GEPF, but rather from the government's funding level towards the Fund. He elaborated that employees contributed 8% of their salaries, while government contributed approximately 15%. A portion of this funding had been allocated to the pension redress programme. He questioned what would have occurred had 200 000 individuals qualified for pension redress, suggesting that each individual might have received only R1 000. He said that it remained unclear why only 1% had been allocated at the time. Further, he explained that the employer was not required to reimburse the allocated funds. He said that 1% of the funds had been directed to the GEPF, but those funds had been withheld, and there was no obligation to reimburse them. He acknowledged that the issue remained complex and would not be resolved that day, but he expressed his willingness to continue discussions in order to find a resolution.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers responded to Mr Ndabambi’s request, stating that as the Chairperson of a Committee, he did not have the authority to approve hotel accommodation or travel expenses. He expressed his regret that he was unable to assist with the request, but emphasised that such matters fell outside the Committee’s mandate. He concluded by stating that he looked forward to reporting back and meeting with the stakeholders again in three months.

Ms Maotwe said that she had understood the matter to be a petition to Parliament, and as such, transport costs should have been covered by Parliament. She expressed disappointment that attendees had been required to cover their own travel expenses. She asserted that the request was not unreasonable, and urged the Mr De Villiers to escalate the matter to the Speaker. She explained that all individuals who came to Parliament in relation to a petition were typically provided with assistance, and questioned why this case had been treated differently. Since Parliament had approved the meeting, it should have been aware of the associated logistical requirements. She argued that the Speaker had effectively called individuals to Parliament, but had not ensured that their transport and accommodation were provided for, which she deemed unfair. She highlighted the significant distance involved in travelling from Mahikeng, stating that as someone from the North West, she was aware that the journey could take 24 hours by road. She emphasised that flying was the most practical option, but questioned how those affected would afford the cost of flights. She reiterated her request for the matter to be taken up with the Speaker.

Co-Chairperson De Villiers then informed the attendees that he had been made aware by the parliamentary staff that Mr Ndabambi’s flight to the meeting had been covered in accordance with the relevant rule, which he himself had not been aware of. However, he clarified that based on the staff’s understanding, the rest of the executive had been expected to join the meeting via Zoom, and as a result, no provisions had been made for their travel. A discussion would take place outside the meeting to explore potential ways to accommodate them.

In conclusion, he expressed his gratitude to all stakeholders, the Members, and the parliamentary staff for their efforts in organising the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.