It is important to note that neither the GEP Law nor the GEPF rules provides guidance as to what constitutes satisfactory proof as prescribed in rule 6 or, as in this case, 'sufficient proof'. Nonetheless, the court was of the view that to establish whether proof that has been provided is 'sufficient', an objective reasonable man's test must be used.
The court opined that '[t]he question is not whether the Board of the [GEPF] subjectively considered the proof to be sufficient, but whether the proof supplied would satisfy a reasonable man in the position of the Board'. In applying the reasonable man test, the court considered the member's oral testimony that, based on her employment, she started contributing towards her retirement in The court also considered the member's salary slips that clearly illustrated both the date of employment and contribution to a retirement fund.
The court found that to demand that the member should produce all the salary slips that she received from was to demand the impossible from her. Further that under the circumstances no reasonable man in the position of the Board would demand such proof from the member. The court concluded that the member had produced satisfactory proof that her pensionable service with the previous fund started in The case illustrates the extent to which GEPF expects its members to prove the period of their historic pensionable service.
The member in Mmileng was, to some extent, fortunate because all the departments that she worked for before are located within Mahikeng area, which was the capital city of Bophuthatswana where all the national government buildings were situated. The situation is far worse for those GEPF members who were civil servants before and worked for different governmental departments or divisions in different parts of the country. Some of the places and buildings where these members used to work no longer exist and their employment files cannot be located, a point also noted by the court in Mmileng.
Unfortunately, there are many GEPF members who fall within this category who retired and could not provide the fund with satisfactory proof of their employment and contribution towards their retirement before These members' benefits are still held by the GEPF.
Some of the current GEPF members also fall within this category and are likely forfeit their retirement benefits because of evidentiary challenges. While rule 6 of the GEPF Rules appears to be practical and necessary to prevent the fund from paying benefits to people who are not entitled to such benefits, the rigid application of this rule leads to prejudicial outcomes for members with historic pensionable service.
It is also nonsensical to place the onus solely on members to prove their historic pensionable service without any assistance from the fund, which was supposed to insist on such information when it accepted previous funds' assets before it started its business. There is also a general failure to consider the fact that government, as the employer, ought to have provided the GEPF's board with adequate information regarding all the members of previous funds' contributions when it established the fund.
Members are being made to carry the impossible evidentiary burden of approaching government for necessary proof and are faced with poor record keeping of both their employment and contribution details by government. It is recommended that both the GEPF and government should initiate a process that will identify former members who were faced with this issue and current members who are likely to face this issue when they exit the fund. This process should include a complete investigation and review all the archived employment files by officials in current governmental departments and divisions to see whether or not relevant information that proves members' historic pensionable service can be obtained and provided to the GEPF.
The only irrefutable evidence that can be provided to satisfy the Board appears to be monthly salary slips from previous years. However, it is unrealistic to expect members to have all their previous salary slips. It is important that other solutions regarding satisfactory proof are considered by both the GEPF and government. For instance, where members indicate places where they employed as civil servants before , the GEPF and government can obtain affidavits from people who worked with the member to confirm the member's claim.
Another option would be for the GEPF and government to initiate and fund dedicated research or academic investigation that can determine the extent to which this is a challenge and recommend viable solutions. Three years would be a reasonable period of time in which to complete this. You are currently viewing a restricted preview of a profile.
Assets Under Management. Type Public Pension Fund. Location Pretoria South Africa. Year Established Total Staff -. Management Team Staff. Investment Team Staff. The pension fund is governed by the Government Employees Pension Law of It is the largest pension fund in South Africa and one of the largest pension funds in Africa and the world. Want to see more?
Showing 5 of 12 known decision makers at Government Employees Pension Fund Preqin screens the most influential contacts in alternatives, so you only reach the key decision makers Request a Demo to see more. Time to go Pro. Unlock exclusive data on future plans, company financials, fundraising history, track records, and more. Sign in.
0コメント