NIS’ apparently defective recordkeeping practices played a major role in their refusal to pay my pension
It is with a profound sense of outrage that I pen this letter in relation to the NIS’s inexplicable refusal to pay me my land- earned pension. Technically, I would have qualified since December 26, 2017. Four (4) years eight (8) months later I am still awaiting a resolution. My question is: what crime have I committed to be on the receiving end of such a painful deprivation? The facts, briefly are as follows - although there has been employment at other entities of shorten durations, my main places of employment had been as follow:a) The public Service – 1975-10-01 to 1986-10-31 b) The Bauxite Industry Co.Ltd -1988-08-08 to 1995-08-31
Banks DIH .Ltd- 1966-09-01 to 2000-01-05 c)
At no time during the above period did I even receive any communication whatsoever from the NIS, except, until shortly before my qualifying date when I received an extract of my NIS records dated 2016-12-09, and a subsequent one dated 2021-02-17, both reflecting what appeared to be a significant deficit in my contribution records. A perusal of the 2016 document revealed that although I had been in continuous employment in the public service during this period, the record reflected a complete absence of contributions for the year 1978, 1979 and 1980. Again, although I was in continuous employment at BIDCO, not only were there a complete absence of contributions for the year 1989, 1991 and 1993, the contributions reflected were 4, 5 and 8, respectively. As regards Bank DIH, there was also reflected a deficit in my contribution record. Very, very significantly I should note that the second NIS document, dated 202102-17, actually reflected a reduction of the apparent deficit by 35 contributions (unbelievable).
The above scenario raises a whole lot of very troubling questions: Why investigations were apparently only initiated after the submission of my pension appeal and not in a timelier manner, decades ago, when, for example, BIDCO was still in existence and source documents could have been available. Is the NIS seriously, through its actions and omissions, implying that all my employers, including the gov’t, were delinquent and that such an absurdly erratic record is an accurate reflection of the pattern of their various submissions? Doesn’t the thirty-five (35) contributions that belatedly reduced my alleged deficit indicate clearly and manifestly that indeed NIS’ apparently defective recordkeeping practices played a part, perhaps the major role in the current situation? Why was I kept completely in the dark until decades later about this perverse record and shouldn’t this be considered gross negligence?
Is it not perhaps time due to just such an asymmetrical access to information that the drafters of NIS’ legal framework included a specific piece of legislation that explicitly states that in the event of a dispute such as the extant one, the onus is on NIS to resolve the matter in favour of the contributor is in some way responsible for the alleged deficit? Would it not therefore be illegal for NIS to continue to refuse to pay me my hard-earned pension? Is the state of my NIS records due to negligence, incompetence or a corrupt allocation of my contributions to other contributions? Shouldn’t I and others benefit from the Minister’s intervention as did Mr. Parris? And why is the gov’t not adopting a more robust approach to a situation that is causing so much pain to so many. Finally, why should I be collateral damage for an apparent dilemma created by their manifestly defective recordkeeping practices and how can the NIS perversely rely on their own deficiencies to unethically refuse to pay me my pension. One would have thought that such an absurd record would have triggered appropriate actions decades ago. I await a time-sensitive response from the General Manager, whose pension, I am sure, is absolutely guaranteed.
Sincerely,
G. Fenell