The Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations has noted that in undertaking the National Pensions
(Amendment) Bill and other exercises concerning the Law, Government will not under any circumstances do anything to undermine the work of the National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA).
This was contained in a press release issued today:
Press Statement On The National Pensions
(Amendment) Bill On
The Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations in December, 2014 requested the Parliament of Ghana to pass The National Pensions (Amendment) Bill under certificate of urgency, which the Honourable Minister satisfactorily accomplished.
In doing so, the Ministry was minded more by the supreme interest of workers, some of whom were due to retire in January, 2015 and will be seriously disadvantaged financially. It may be recalled that some who retired in 2014 had their pensions reduced by as much as Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH?200,000.00). So definitely, time was of the essence in order to amend the Law, especially with respect to the retiring age. Thus the amendment was initiated to reduce the retiring age from 55 to 50 years so that below 55 workers who retire can still opt for the benefits under the SSNIT Pension Scheme.
The second amendment was also to address another shortcoming in the Law especially as pertains to the sustainability of the first-tier pension scheme, and the calculation of pensions.
We wish to reiterate that in undertaking this and other exercises concerning the Law, Government will not under any circumstances do anything to undermine the work of the National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA) and to assure that government would continue to initiate developments which will inure to the benefit of workers.
Meanwhile a Stakeholders Consultative workshop on the Three-Tier pension scheme is being planned for February to address the outstanding concerns to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders within the pensions administration in the country.
We wish to appeal to labour to look more at the substance rather than the form of the amendment which was done in their best interest.