Pension Funds Adjudicator demands transparency from funds in death benefit disputes
The PFA said the POPI Act should not be used to prevent access to information
Pension Funds Adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane has said that the POPI Act does not prevent the PFA from having access to pension fund investigation reports.
Image: Supplied
Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) Muvhango Lukhaimane has taken a firm stance against funds that withhold investigation reports under the guise of protecting personal information, warning that the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) should not be used to conceal poor investigations.
In a recent determination, Lukhaimane made it clear that funds are obligated to share information with the PFA when requested without needing consent from beneficiaries.
“A fund cannot hide behind POPIA,” she said, adding that the PFA qualifies as a public body and “is allowed to collect personal information when necessary for the conduct of proceedings”.
The PFA was dealing with a complaint from the customary spouse of a deceased member of the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund. She was unhappy with the board's decision to award a large portion of the R560 160 death benefit to the deceased’s life partner.
The board had allocated:
- 28% each to the spouse and the life partner,
- 2% to five major children,
- 30% to one minor child, and
- 2% each to two other minor children.
However, the deceased’s nomination form indicated that he wished for 80% to go to his spouse, 10% to his life partner, and 5% each to two children.
Lukhaimane ruled that the fund failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the financial dependency of each beneficiary.
“There is a duty on the fund to actively investigate the extent of each of the beneficiaries’ financial dependency on the deceased,” she stressed. “The fund failed to follow the beneficiary nomination. There must be a valid reason for not honouring a nomination.”
She noted that the fund initially refused to share its investigation report with PFA citing POPIA. It eventually complied after being reminded that POPIA does not restrict the PFA from accessing such information.
“It is clear that PAIA and POPIA may be used to hide a less than thorough investigation,” she said.
Setting aside the board’s decision, Lukhaimane said she was not satisfied that all relevant factors: dependency, age, and the deceased’s wishes were adequately considered.
“Those who were dependent on the deceased must not be left destitute,” she said.