NSSF must show it can manage fund professionally

The latest controversy over the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) board is a reminder that the giant institution is yet to exorcise the ghosts of its past.

For decades, NSSF has been a conduit for scandals, losing billions of shillings in public funds through a combination of systemic failures and the greed of influential individuals.

But in the last few years, NSSF has taken giant strides in cleaning up its sullied image with policy, personnel and legal changes aimed at protecting the billions of shillings under its watch. The latest has been the NSSF Act whose highlight is increased monthly contributions, something that has been challenged in court.

Nonetheless, the announcement on Friday by Labour Cabinet Secretary Kazungu Kambi that he had retired from the NSSF board Mr Francis Atwoli, the workers’ representative, and Ms Jackline Mugo, who represents the employers, has opened a new battlefront.

The debate on the minister’s powers and motivation has once again exposed the soft underbelly of the giant fund.

While one side considers the move to remove the two from the board as interference informed by vested interests, there are those who think he is right to invoke the new rules that limit how long one can serve on the board. Only time will resolve these differences.

Certain loser

But one certain loser in the supremacy battle is the NSSF “shareholder” — the average worker and the employer who are required to make statutory contributions.

These, it must be clarified, may not necessarily be members of the Central Organisation of Trade Unions or the Federation of Kenya Employers, whose representatives are now fighting to retain their positions. No, these are long-suffering ordinary Kenyans who may not get value for money upon retirement if such wrangles continue.

Considering the history of NSSF, it would not be unfair to assume that the ongoing intrigues may be linked to the battle to control the fund.  

Such noises, however, are unlikely to provide sufficient answers to questions about alleged impropriety, including the proposed Sh5 billion Tassia project in Nairobi that was stopped after a section of the board opposed it.

More importantly, it is unlikely to boost public confidence in NSSF just when it is needed most at a time when the institution is expected to manage billions more from the proposed increased contributions.

We doubt that these wrangles are in the interest of the public, and NSSF must come out strongly to give assurances.