Monrovia – The Liberian Senate seems to be faced with dilemma in adopting an integrated pension and benefits scheme for certain categories of officials of government, with the sticky question of what constitutes “honorable retirement” for lawmakers.
Henry Karmo [email protected]
The proposed law seeks to give pension annuity to officials of the Executive branch of Government (the President and Vice President), the Legislative branch of government (The Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives and the Judiciary (Chief-Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court and Circuit Court judges).
The proposed integrated pension law when passed into law will mean lawmakers going for re-election will not have to worry about winning or losing, because whatever decision is eventually taken, they will have something to benefit either as salary or pension and ‘honorable’ retirement benefits.
Many lawmaker are concerned about the real definition of ‘honorable retirement’ as it is spelled out in the proposed law. Some are also concerned that it’s yet to be addressed by the proposed law, with many raising concerns whether this law means “a lawmaker who contests and loses re-election is qualified to benefit under the nomenclature ‘honorable retirement” especially when there is no limit on how long a lawmaker can be elected for?
The Senate is also debating what “retirement” is and what constitutes pension especially with an existing National Social Security and Corporation (NASSCORP) law that states that one must have made hundred contributions to NASSCORP and be 60 years old before benefiting.
Senator Darius Dillon (LP-Montserrado County), Senator Emmanuel Nuquay (PUP-Margibi County) and many other senators believe the law is “ambiguous” and needs further clarity by the Senate’s judiciary committee.
The debate on Tuesday followed a report submitted to Plenary by the Senate’s Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, Claims and Petition, chaired by Grand Cape Mount County Senator Cllr. Varney Sherman.
After the report, the debate intensified when some senators were concerned about how they will be treated regarding of benefits in case they’re no longer in public service.
At the same time, other senators raised issues based on how pension and retirement would be in their cases, whether they will follow the benchmark set by the National Social Security Corporation or if they (senators) will insert some legal conditions in their favor.
During Tuesday’s argument, Senator Dillon stressed that a lawmaker that is voted out by the electorate should not be entitled to any retirement benefits.
According to the opposition lawmaker, a lawmaker who is voted out is based on how the electorate examines his/her legislative workings, arguing he or she departure from office is not an honorable retirement, and therefore a former lawmaker in this category should not be a liability to national government.