Ailing, homeless, jobless, and supporting a mentally-challenged child, a retired teacher found herself left with no choice but to approach the Non-Bank Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (NBFIRA), to ask for the balance of her pension. Unfortunately, though her plight is painfully dire, the law has turned her down.

The NBFIRA tribunal court ruled in favour of the Authority leaving the retired and frustrated, Judith Gobodiwang in the cold. She has been denied early access to her retirement package which she said would assist her sad plight.

The facts of the matter are that former teacher, Gobodiwang was forced to retire from public service in December 2021 due to ill health.

Instead, she says she was given only one-third of her retirement benefit after Princess Marina Referral Hospital wrote to government informing the State that she was a patient who needed special medical attention.

Her case was then taken to a hospital in South Africa where she stayed for two weeks. She says during the medical assistance a tube was left inside her and was told that she should return after a month so the tube could be removed.

After returning from South Africa, Gobodiwang says she again wrote to government requesting the balance of her retirement benefit. She said she intended to use the money to pay for the remainder of her medical bills, consolidate her personal loans, and build a house for herself.

To her surprise, she said government wrote to her that she could not cash the remainder of her retirement package as this would go against the retirement fund laws.

She further wrote to government that her medical condition had deteriorated and that she could not sit down for long and that she needed to have the tube left inside of her body removed as told by doctors in South Africa and that the money would be used for her to get medical assistance for herself without relying on Princess Marina.

She said this is because after returning from South Africa from the initial two-week trip, she had visited Marina several times and could not be assisted because they told her that they were still waiting for her medical report from South Africa.

She said because she now desperately needs to have the tube left inside her removed, and Marina is not ‘assisting’ her, the money would help her travel to South Africa to the same doctor and have the tube removed on her bill.

“She is now tired of waiting for Princess Marina Hospital and wants to use her retirement benefit to take herself to South Africa without involving government,” reads her court document application in part.

“The applicant further testified that while in South Africa, Kidney stones were removed from her body. She stated that when Princess Marina Hospital did a scan post her operation in South Africa, they realised that a tube was left inside her. She stated that in her understanding the tube was to be removed when she visited South Africa for her medical review,” her application papers read.

The retired teacher further told the court that her situation is so severe and needed serious attention in that she does not only suffer from ill health. She told the court that she also has a mentally disturbed child, who though an adult, cannot fend for himself and so is left in her care.

She said he becomes violent when his demands are not met. She added she has sought assistance from social welfare services but is yet to receive help. In her closing, she told the court that she did not approach the court on points of law. She stated that she understands there is no provision of law that she can use to support her request. However, she appeals to the court to asses her dire situation and come to a reasonable conclusion to assist her with her retirement package balance to at least take care of her poor health.

In its defence, NBFIRA maintained that there is no provision for encashment for retirement benefits before time.

NBFIRA maintained that no law gives it any discretionary power to order the withdrawal of retirement benefits over what is prescribed by the law.

NBFIRA submitted that according to regulation 2 (1) of the income tax (superannuation regulations), 2001, provides that where a member two-third benefit pays them less than P5,000 per annum, that is the only circumstance where a member, with the permission of the Commissioner General, may encash their pension benefit as a single lump sum. In the retired teacher’s case, no matter her dire situation at home, her ill health, homelessness, and her challenge of meeting the needs of her mentally challenged child, she does not qualify as her benefit was more than P5,000 per annum.

NBFIRA maintained their hands were tied. Given the chance to respond to NBFIRA, Gobodiwang said there was nothing she could do if the law stipulates such through it works against the people it is supposed to work for. She resigned to her fate saying that she will have to appreciate the law and that the law is the law.

Gobodiwang said that she was in grave pain due to her ill health and her home situation.

She said that her retirement package is the money she worked for and would have wanted it to assist her as she is not getting timely assistance from Princess Marina. She said Marina’s delays jeopardised her chances of ever restoring her good health.

She said her children are starving as she has no other means to take care of them.

She said she understood the purpose of a pension fund to assist one to provide for themselves after retiring from service.

Instead she now only gets P600 per month which is not even close to being enough.

In the end, the tribunal noted she had been given one-third of her retirement package as prescribed by the law.

“It may very well be that the applicant is frustrated as she perceived her medical condition urgent and the public health service may appear too slow for her welfare. However, no law comes to the assistance of the applicant to assist her to encash all her retirement benefits on medical grounds. Without being insensitive to the applicant’s medical condition, even her admission that she is coming to the tribunal based on compassion bears testimony that the applicant is quite familiar with the position of the law,” the judgment reads.

Although sensitive to her dire plight, the NBFIRA tribunal still turned down her request.