JOINING ESWATINI'S PENSION DEBATE
The fierce national conversation over Eswatini’s pension future has reached a fever pitch, and anyone following the developments will notice that this hullaballoo reveals deeper underlying issues beneath the surface.
The proposed legislation to convert the Eswatini National Provident Fund (ENPF) into a universal pension scheme has not only dominated the national discourse but also ignited a heated battle of narratives. Both the Public Service Pension Fund (PSPF) and the ENPF have deployed aggressive advocacy and public relations (PR) tactics to sway opinion in their favour.
Incontrovertibly, the ENPF appears to have gone furthest by using members’ funds to bankroll what looks like a full-blown PR campaign aimed at outmanoeuvring its rivals. Its recent double-spread adverts in national dailies have done more than just sell a position; they have jolted the public into asking whether something far larger is at stake, given the visible frustration now spilling out of the country’s Provident Fund.
For the uninitiated, there is a proposed legislation for conversion of the ENPF into a universal pension scheme which the ENPF argues is designed to protect existing members, expand social security to all workers promoting financial inclusion and a broader safety net, and build long-term resilience and foster long-term stability in the country’s economy through a robust and comprehensive pension system.
The ENPF argues that converting the Fund into a universal pension scheme and including public servants will strengthen the country’s social security system through better economies of scale, lower administrative costs, and broader risk pooling. It maintains that unlike the PSPF, which began in an underfunded position, ENPF is fully funded and therefore offers greater long-term security.
The Fund highlights benefits such as portability for workers moving between the public and private sectors, diversification of benefits to cushion against underperformance in one scheme, and alignment with international best practices promoting universal and inclusive social protection.
For civil servants who fear the change will weaken the PSPF, ENPF insists that constitutional guarantees ensure no member will be worse off at retirement, and that inclusion in the national scheme will ultimately provide them with stronger financial security, more sustainable pensions, and broader social solidarity.
Writing for Swazi Bridge on 27 August 2025, the Minister for Labour and Social Security, Phila Buthelezi, said:
“At its simplest, the Bill replaces the once-off lump sum system with a pension that pays a guaranteed monthly income for life. Instead of watching decades of savings disappear overnight, workers can retire knowing that every month, until their last day, they will receive a stable, reliable income. The proposed legislation is a fundamental reform designed to tackle poverty head-on by ensuring that decades of hard work translate into long-term security.
This new defined benefit scheme protects members from market volatility by pooling risks and providing stable, indexed returns. It is designed for long-term sustainability, requiring a 15-year minimum contribution period to begin fully funded. The fund is also a powerful engine for economic growth, mobilising long-term savings for national projects and strengthening the economy.
It will extend coverage to informal workers and domestic employees for the first time, and it introduces compulsory spouse pensions. In essence, it is a protective social safety net, a key to national development, and a legacy for future generations. This reform is not cosmetic. It is fundamental. It addresses poverty, strengthens national solidarity, and modernises our social protection system in line with global best practice.”
Perhaps, at this point, it is imperative to state who the ENPF is, how it was formed and its core mandate. ENPF is a retirement benefit savings scheme that was established in 1974 by King Sobhuza II. Its core business, which is governed by the King’s Order and Council No. 23 of 1974 is to manage and administer retirement benefits for employed Eswatini nationals, except for civil servants. The main purpose is to provide benefit for employed persons when they retire from regular employment in old age or in the event of becoming incapacitated.
All employers of labour in Eswatini are required by law to become contributing members of the Fund and must pay a contribution for every eligible staff member. The employee’s share (one half of the stipulated amount) is deducted from wages. At retirement, the member receives the amount as a once-off lump sum.
The proposed ENPF Bill 2025 seeks to extend coverage to public servants and, for the first time, ensure that all workers, including those in the informal sector, have access to retirement security by contributing and becoming members.
However, there is always another side to the story. The PSPF, backed by public sector unions, argues that the proposed legislation would leave members worse off by enabling deductions from the PSPF. The PSPF is a Fund established under the Public Service Pensions Order of 1993, and it manages retirement benefits for Eswatini’s civil servants.
Regarding the proposed legislation, the PSPF contends that dual pension and contribution clauses could erode benefits and ultimately weaken the Fund.
“Why change a working formula and interfere with a well-oiled machine that has served workers smoothly for years?” they argue.
In a wide-ranging interview with Swazi Bridge at the end of August 2025, PSPF's Director of Corporate Services, Elkan Makhanya, said as an organisation they welcomed the idea of transforming ENPF into a pension fund but raised firm reservations about the implications of drawing civil servants into the proposed new scheme.
"Reforms must be structured in a way that does not duplicate or disrupt existing statutory pension funds that have proven effective", Makhanya said.
Makhanya says that civil servants were excluded from ENPF when it was created in 1974 because they were already covered by a statutory pension fund. He states that the new scheme should preserve that arrangement.
“Migrating civil servants into the new National Pension Fund would require extensive legal, actuarial and financial review, with the overriding principle being the protection of pension rights and sustainability of public servants’ pensions,” he continued.
Having read the Bill, familiarized oneself with both sides of the story, and observed recent developments in the public sphere, one is inclined to support the ENPF in their advocacy for the conversion, particularly as it ensures social security for Emaswati and benefits previously excluded workers in the informal sector.
However, this change must never disadvantage the PSPF or the civil servants who enjoy benefits from a well-run Fund that provides a lump sum at retirement and half their salaries thereafter. This is an effective and smoothly operating pension scheme. The ENPF and all its lobbyists, including its media and PR consultants, should back off and leave the civil servants’ pension fund untouched.
We all know what the PSPF has achieved and how it benefits Emaswati, not just civil servants. Currently, it serves over 40,000 active members and 26,000 pensioners and beneficiaries, having paid out more than E16.3 billion in benefits over the past three decades. As of March 31, 2025, the Fund had invested 44 percent of its assets (E15 billion) domestically, spanning sectors such as property, hospitality, agriculture, energy, health, and telecommunications.
These investments have contributed to job creation, supporting more than 20,000 direct positions through companies like the Hilton Garden Inn, Ebuhleni Plaza, Tambankulu Estates, and the Oncology Cancer Centre.
Why interfere with something that is running smoothly? If the ENPF is experiencing financial or liquidity challenges, or if some see opportunities for gain, they must find other ways to address these issues, not disrupt the PSPF, which is functioning effectively.
No one opposes the conversion and its potential benefits, but there is everything wrong with tampering with civil servants’ pension fund. Period. This does not require endless newspaper advertorials or funded media campaigns that distort the message under the guise of clarification. Hands off the PSPF!