ZFE SUBMISSION TO PARLIAMENT: NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL (NAB NO. 68 OF 2026)

Your ref: NAS/11/12/7
May 4th, 2026

The Office of the Clerk,
National Assembly of Zambia
Parliament Buildings
Lusaka

Dear Sirs,

Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technologies: Consideration of the
National Pension Scheme Bill, NAB No. 68 of 2026
Your letter dated April 30th, 2026 on the captioned subject matter refers. Thank you sincerely for
inviting us to make written and oral submissions on the National Pension Scheme Bill, N.A.B. No.
68 of 2026.

Our members are the principal funders of the National Pension Scheme. We are thus pleased that
we have been consulted throughout the process of the review and drafting of the Bill, and now its
tabling before the National Assembly. We commend the Bill’s sponsor the Ministry of Labor and
Social Security and the National Pension Scheme Authority, among other stakeholders, for taking
into consideration our submissions throughout the process.

We have noted that a number of issues we highlighted at the Tripartite Consultative Labor Council
in January 2026, and at the Internal Legislative Committee of the Ministry of Justice in April, 2026,
have been taken into account and the draft Bill accordingly refined. There were however a
number of lingering issues that are in the Bill. These are highlighted within our submissions
attached hereto. They are principally on:

• Governance and functional accuracy;
• Unjustified restriction on employment;
• Operational clarity;
• Legal accuracy;
• Enforcement mechanisms and the need for limitation periods; and
• General grammatical errors.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 2 of 2
  We confirm that we will appear for oral submissions at the appointed time and venue of Monday,
  May 4th, 2026 at 10.30 hours in Robinson Nabulyato Committee Room, Parliament
  Buildings.
  Kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this letter and its enclosure.
  Yours faithfully,
  ZAMBIA FEDERATION OF EMPLOYERS
  Harrington Chibanda
  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON
THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL No. 68 OF 2026
CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. 2. Interpretation
   ➢ “Technical education,
   vocational and
   entrepreneurship training
   institution” means an
   institution that provides
   technical education,
   vocational and
   entrepreneurship training,
   whether by distance
   learning or otherwise.

• This definition is inconsistent with the definitions
  of “higher education institution” and “school
  education”. Both those definitions refer to the
  legislation under which those levels of education
  are regulated. TEVET education is regulated by the
  Technical Education, Vocational and
  Entrepreneurship Training ActNo. 13 of1998.
• Other similar definitions refer to the enabling
  statute, including “Zambia Qualifications
  Authority”.
• Amend the definition of “Technical
  education, vocational and
  entrepreneurship training institution” to
  include the legislation under which
  such institutions are regulated.

1. 3. Non-application of Act
2. This Act shall not apply to—
   (a) an employee whose
   monthly earning is less
   than the amount
   prescribed by the
   Minister;
   …
   (g) any other person as
   prescribed.

• Zambia is a member of the International Labor
  Organization (ILO). The foundation of all ILO’s
  work is tripartism. That is why the Tripartite
  Consultative Labor Council (TCLC) is established
  within the Industrial and Labor Relations Act Cap
  269.
• In practice, nolabor-related legislation goes
  through the consultative process without final
  consideration by the social partners at the TCLC.
  This should be codified in this legislation as a
• Amend clause 3(a) and (g) to provide
  that the Minister may prescribe in
  consultation with the Tripartite
  Consultative Labor Council.
• An example of such a provision is in
  section 2 of the Employment Code Act
  Cap 268:
  The Minister may, after consultation
  with the Tripartite Consultative Labor
  Council, by statutory instrument…
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 2 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  fundamental component of the Decent Work
  Agenda.
• Application in particular is important for
  institutionalized consultation, such as that
  provided in the Employment Code Act Cap 268 and
  the Industrial and Labor Relations Act Cap 269.
  This needs to also be provided for in the NPS Act.

1. 6. Board of Authority • We submitted before the Committee on National
   Economy, Trade and Labor Matters on April 20th,
   2026 in relation to the expanded inclusion of the
   private sector on statutory boards. While our
   submissions were on the Pension Scheme
   Regulation (Amendment) Bill NAB No. 7 of 2026;
   and the Public Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill
   NAB No. 9 of 2026, we made some general
   proposals because there were several other Bills
   that had the same objective.

• We had submitted that“private sector” was vast
  and in the absolute majority in the country, when
  compared with the public sector. While we
  applauded the expanded inclusion of that category,
  we urged stronger criteria on the eligibility of
  candidates for Board positions in order to promote
  transparency and reduce the risk of political
  patronage.
• We advocated for at least four criteria:
• Include a new paragraph (d) under
  subclause (4) of clause 6:
  Is a member in good standing of a
  registered professional association
  or body representing practitioners in
  any of the subjects in paragraph (c).
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 3 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  (i) Skill identified by a recognized
  qualification;
  (ii) Identification of relevant specializations for
  the stated qualifications;
  (iii) A minimum level of experience; and
  (iv) Registration with a recognized professional
  body.
• Item number (iv) was an acceptable substitute
  with nomination by a recognized professional
  institution. The requirement of such registration
  would provide an independent confirmation of
  professional ethical conduct.
• We are glad to note that subclause (4) of clause 6
  has the first three criteria we proposed. The fourth
  is not included. In our view, that would make it
  more difficult to prove fulfilment of the
  requirement under clause 6(4)(a), being “proven
  integrity”.

1. 7. Functions of the Board
   (3) The Board may, by
   direction, in writing, and on
   conditions that the Board
   considers necessary, delegate
   to the Director-General any of
   the Boards functions under this
   Act.

• Correct the grammatical error in the
  third line from the Boards functions to
  the Board’s functions.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 4 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. 8. Director General
2. (1) The Minister shall, on the
   recommendation of the Board,
   appoint a Director-General who
   shall be—

• We oppose the Director General being appointed
  by the same appointing authority as the Board, i.e.
  the Minister. In other institutions with this
  structure, it has created challenges of supervision
  and accountability. It is not enough to state that
  the DG shall be, “responsible for the day-to-day
  administration of the Authority under the direction
  of the Board”. The hierarchy must be firmly
  established from appointmentand not afterwards.
• It is also inexplicably different from most other
  public institutions in the countrywith more recent
  legislation, including in the PSPF Bill No. 69 of
  2026 and the LASF BillNo. 70 of 2026.
• From the consultative process, it appeared that the
  justification of the Minister’s direct involvement in
  the appointment of the DG of NAPSA is that
  Government guarantees the NPS Fund. That seems
  to conveniently overlook the fact that all statutory
  funds are guaranteed by the Central Government.
  That is exactly why there are substantial annual
  appropriations for LASF and PSPF.
• Furthermore, we are surprised that less than a
  year after the Ministry of Justice launched the
  National Corporate Governance Code, the very
  same Government is going against its own
  principles of good corporate governance. Page 13
  of the Code states (emphasis supplied):
• Replicate the DG appointment clause of
  the other social security institution
  Acts and the PSPF and LASF Bills, that
  is:
  The Board shall appoint a DirectorGeneral who shall be…
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 5 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  Boards are responsible for appointing top
  management positions such as Chief Executive
  Officer (CEO) or Managing Director (MD)
  including a Company Secretary. The
  independence of board appointments must be
  upheld at all times and free from influence,
  interference and or regulatory discretion
  exercised without due process. This needs to
  be observed as credible and qualified
  individuals can be sidelined without recourse,
  weakening both institutional and public trust
  and governance legitimacy… Appointing the
  CEO is one of the board’s most critical
  functions
• The Supreme Court of Zambia in the case of The
  Minister of Information and Broadcasting
  Services & The Attorney General v Fanwell
  Chembo and Others (2007) held that the word
  “recommendation”
  connotes or implies a discretion in the person to
  whom it is made to accept or reject the
  recommendation.
• It therefore directly contradictswhat is expressly
  stated in the National Corporate Governance Code
  for the Board to merely “recommend” the
  appointment of the DG to the Minister.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 6 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
• The Minister appoints the Board. The Minister
  musttrust that the Board he appointed will recruit
  and select the most appropriate DG for the
  institution they are directly supervising and
  therefore have a more intimate understanding
  about. There has already been a history of political
  patronage for pivotal positions in highly liquid
  financial institutions. It must be stopped.

1. 18. Prohibition from
       employing a person that is
       not registered under the Act
       (1) A contributing employer
       shall not employ an eligible
       person who does not have a
       social security number.
       (2) A contributing employer
       who contravenes subsection (1)
       commits an offence and is
       liable, on conviction, to a fine
       not exceeding one hundred
       thousand penalty units or to
       imprisonment for a term not
       exceeding one year, or to both.
       (3) In this section, “eligible
       person” means a person who
       has attained the age of sixteen
       years and is below pensionable

• We have strenuously objected to this provision
  throughout the consultative process. It will
  effectively close off employment to all those
  workers who have already been in formal
  employment because their current or former
  employer would have ensured that they have an
  SSN.
• Immediate implementation of this provision is
  impossible without effectively locking a large
  section of the workforce out from formal
  employment. The youth are most likely to be
  affected.
• Obtaining an SSN requires being in possession of
  an NRC. The Integrated National Registration
  Information System (INRIS)is still in the process of
  being implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs
  and Internal Security. Until it is fully effective, the
  challenge of duplicated NRC numbers will
  continue. No doubt, NAPSA has had the same
• Provide a minimum of a two year
  transition period for this provision.
  Consult Ministry of Home Affairs on the
  status of identity registration in the
  country and a conservative estimate of
  when it will likely be at the levels that
  would make this provision efficacious.
• Alternatively, stipulate a period within
  which the employee should obtain an
  SSN before their employment contract
  becomes void. This should be aligned
  with the employer registration and the
  monthly returns periods.
• Provide a “without good reason”
  proviso for delayed registration to
  cater for cases where an NRC is the
  problem, and stipulate that the
  contributions can be held in suspense.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 7 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  age and is required to be
  registered in accordance with
  section 16.
  challenge with duplicated NRC numbers as other
  schemes. It is not a challenge that is resolved
  overnight.
• Equally, the accessibility of NRCs remains a
  challenge, as seen from the recently ended voter
  registration exercise.
• We have received feedback from many employers
  operating in remote areas and farming blocks that
  onboarding of new employees onto the NAPSA
  digital system takes time and the employers’ own
  resources. We submitted this information to the
  Honorable Committee on National Economy, Trade
  and Labor Matters in February, 2026. It is
  information that NAPSA is very well aware of. They
  have had to assist employers manually to ensure
  the employer does not incur penalties for late
  registration of workers because of system
  difficulties and connectivity restrictions.
• Another consideration is how this can apply in
  relation to expatriate employees duly recruited in
  accordance with the Immigration and Deportation
  Act, 2010, and the Employment Code Act Cap 268.
• Ultimately, this provision seems an attempt to
  transfer the liability for registration as a member
  of NAPSA to the workforce. That is instead of
  NAPSA working with employers in the context of
  all the structural challenges there are in ensuring
• Consult other institutions with similar
  employment restrictions, such as
  ZAQA. ZAQA at least controls the
  verification of qualifications. NAPSA
  does not control the issuance of NRCs
  that are necessary to register for an
  SSN.
• A final option is to delete this
  altogether. It can be brought as an
  amendment to the Act in a few years
  when INRIS is fully functional.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 8of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  social security for all workers and reducing
  informality. It must be removed forthwith or at
  the very least have a transition period of not
  less than two years. Employers already have
  the requirement to file returns by the 10th of
  the following month, which acts as a method of
  ensuring timely registration of employees as
  members of the Scheme.

1. 21. Temporary suspension
       of employer account
       (1) A contributing employer
       that intends to temporarily
       cease operations for a period
       exceeding six months shall
       notify the Director-General in a
       prescribed manner and form.
       (2) The Director-General shall,
       where the Director-General is
       satisfied that a contributing
       employer has temporarily
       ceased to operate, suspend the
       contributing employer’s
       account.
       (3) Subject to the other
       provisions of this Act, a
       contributing employer whose
       account is suspended under

• The threshold for this suspension is to
  “temporarily cease operations for a period
  exceeding six months”. This is too high a threshold.
• Consider this in the context of an unexpected
  operational crisis. Section 48 of the Employment
  Code Act Cap 268 provides for forced leave, and
  the exemption from paying basic pay during forced
  leave that can be granted by the Labor
  Commissioner under SI No. 48 of 2020. Put it in the
  context of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on
  the tourism and hospitality sector. For a very
  recent example, put it in the context of the crisis
  created by the US-Israel-Iran War.
• When an operational crisis occurs, it can rarely be
  anticipated or timed to meet the threshold that this
  clause provides. The challenge is compounded by
  clause 22, which reinforces that an employer
  remains liable for contributions apparently due
• Remove the threshold “a period
  exceeding six months”. Leave it open
  for an employer who temporarily
  ceases operations without rising to the
  level of corporate insolvency to notify
  the DG immediately.
• Thus, this clause would implicitly take
  cognizance of such arrangements
  under the Employment Code Act Cap
  268 as forced leave.
• There are enough protections in
  subclauses (6) to (8) to guard against
  false notifications for the suspension of
  the employer’s account.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 9 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  subsection (2) shall not be
  required to pay contributions
  during the period of suspension.
  prior to the suspension of the account under clause
  21.
• The threshold under clause 21 is therefore
  impractical because it would require the employer
  to seek penalty waivers while still being liable for
  contributions when it may have placed the
  employees on forced leave with no pay as
  approved by the Labor Commissioner.
• The provision under clause 23 for unpaid leave is
  not the relieffor forced leave because the two are
  very different concepts under the principal
  employment law, the Employment Code Act Cap
  268.

1. 23. Notification of
       termination of employment,
       resignation and placement
       on unpaid leave or
       secondment

• Another method of reduced or removed wages is
  through section 48 of the Employment Code Act
  Cap 268 on forced leave, and the exemption from
  paying basic pay during forced leave that can be
  granted by the Labor Commissioner under SI No.
  48 of 2020.
• This must be provided for expressly to ensure that
  there are no gaps between the laws. Unpaid leave
  is not the same as forced leave with an exemption
  from paying basic pay. It is still “forced leave”
  under the law while unpaid leave is a contractual
  matter.
• Include forced leave as paragraph (f)
  under subclause (1) and provide for
  the possibility of an exemption from
  basic pay similar to the recognition of
  the different forms of secondment
  under paragraph (d).
• Include the new paragraph (f) under
  subclause (2) as an event that leads to
  the ceasing of the requirement for
  contributions if the exemption from
  basic pay under the Employment Code
  Act Cap 268 has been granted by the
  Labor Commissioner.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 10 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
• Include forced leave with an
  exemption from basic pay under
  clause 25(6) as well.

1. 24. Registration of exempted
       employer
       (2) The consent referred to
       under subsection (1) may apply
       to—
       (a) all the employees of an
       employer who is exempt; or
       (b) a specified number of
       employees of an employer who
       is exempt.

• Expressly identifywho will state the
  “specified number of employees” under
  paragraph (b) of subclause (2). E.g. is it
  the exempt employer?

1. 25. Payment of contributions
       (8) A contributing employer
       shall, where a contributing
       employer fails to pay the
       contribution on the day
       referred to under subsection
       (7), be liable to pay a penalty
       equal to ten per cent of the
       amount unpaid which shall be
       added as a penalty for each
       month or part thereof after the
       day the payment is due.

• The reduction of the penalty from 20% to 10%
  through Act No. 20 of 2022 was a considerable
  relief for many employers. We remain forever
  grateful to the Government for hearing the cries of
  employers. The waiver under the National Pension
  Scheme (Penalty Waiver) Regulations, SI No. 3 of
  2024, was also a tremendous relief.
• Still, the last few years have been considerably
  challenging for employers to pay the bare principal
  contributions, without that penalty. The granting
  of the waiver of the penalty under the Penalty
  Waiver Regulations is conditional on paying the
  principal. This has left many employers in a dire
  financial position, because they also have other
• Reduce the penalty to five percent. It is
  not enough to have a waiver by SI
  under subclause (10). The principal
  provision itself needs to be more
  manageable to encourage
  formalization.
• A higher penalty can be considered
  when the economy has recovered from
  the multiple shocks of recent years and
  the levels of formalization have
  increased.
• Alternatively, the penalty can be
  graduated using the size of business
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 11 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  (9) The Authority may recover
  the amount of the penalty
  referred to under subsection (8)
  by way of civil action in a
  competent court.
  (10) Despite subsection (8), the
  Authority may waive a penalty
  incurred by a contributing
  employer on conditions that the
  Minister may, by statutory
  instrument, prescribe.
  overdue statutory remittances such as PAYE. The
  end result is insolvency and the potential closure
  of the business with nothing for the employees.
• Not all types of employers who face financial crises
  fall into the limited categories for exemption under
  the limited grounds for exemption under the
  Penalty Waiver Regulations. Their insolvency
  would also lead to nothing for the Scheme for
  clause 27(2). The categories are:
  (a) liquidation in accordance with the
  Corporate Insolvency Act, 2017;
  (b) business rescue proceedings in accordance
  with the Corporate Insolvency Act, 2017;
  (c) receivership in accordance with the
  Corporate
  Insolvency Act, 2017;
  (d) failure to pay a contribution due to a
  verifiable failure of the Authority’s
  administrative and payment system;
  (e) undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in
  accordance
  with the Bankruptcy Act;
  (f) employer incurs a penalty due to—
  (i) natural disaster;
  (ii) state of war; and
  (iii) public emergency
  identified in the Revised National Micro
  Small and Medium Enterprise
  Development Policy (2023). A lower
  penalty of 2% for micro enterprises to
  the ceiling of 10% for large enterprises
  would be more equitable while still
  deterrent to potential defaulters.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 12 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
• The consequences of non-compliance with
  statutory remittances is another reason why there
  are low levels of formality in the economy. It is a
  punishing status with no stabilization period for
  start-ups. The effect of that is consistent inability
  to fully implement the Decent Work Agenda.
• The cost of doing business will also affect the
  economy’s expansion into a 24-hour economy.
  Employers who would like to extend their
  operating hours will be discouraged by the
  associated costs of labor.

1. 29. Attachment of debt
       (1) The Director-General may,
       where a contribution due from
       a contributing employer
       remains unpaid, by notice, in
       writing, require that an
       amount, or so much as is
       sufficient, to discharge up to
       fifty per cent of the
       contributions due from the
       contributing employer, be paid
       to the Authority by a person…
       (2) A person who fails to
       comply with a notice served on
       that person in accordance with

• In February 2024, we facilitated country-wide
  consultative meetings between NAPSA and
  employers. The main objective was to obtain
  employers’ views on enforcement mechanisms for
  failure to remit contributions to the NPS.
• Employers resolved in relation to the attachment
  of debts that it was acceptable and in fact
  preferable to criminal prosecution. That was
  provided that the challenges faced with the way
  ZRA had been effecting attachments was not
  replicated by NAPSA. To that end, guidelines were
  needed on the following conditions.
  (i) Attachment was limited to unpaid
  contributions and did not include penalties;
  (ii) It was done only in exceptional
  circumstances;
• Provide for the order of precedence
  between attachment by the Zambia
  Revenue Authority and by NAPSA.
• Also provide for the prescribing of
  guidelines for attachment. The
  guidelines should not be left to
  administrative formulation. A broad
  framework should be prescribed and
  then the details left to administrative
  manuals.
• Alternatively, NAPSA should be given
  the power to issue guidelines after
  stakeholder consultation on such
  critical issues as enforcement
  mechanisms.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 13 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  subsection (1) commits an
  offence…
  (iii)It excluded money that belonged to third
  parties that was in the custody of the
  defaulting employer;
  (iv)There was consistency in the way the
  mechanism was used;
  (v) There was sufficient notice before it was
  effected and hence provided a grace period
  for compliance; and
  (vi)There were remedies for wrongful
  attachments.
• Neither clause 29 nor clause 65 on regulations
  have any provision for the prescription of
  guidelines for the use of attachment as an
  enforcement mechanism.

1. 30. Retirement and
       condition for award of
       retirement pension
       (1) Subject to the provisions of
       this Act, a member shall retire
       upon attaining pensionable age.
       ** Clause 3:
       “pensionable age” means the
       age of sixty years;

• Under section 3 of the ECA Cap 268, a “permanent
  contract” is defined as:
  A contract of employment, if not terminated in
  accordance with this Act, expires on the
  employee’s attainment of the retirement age
  specified under a written law.
• Section 52(7) provides that “A contract of
  employment expires…
  (a) at the end of the term for which it is expressed
  to be made;
  (b) …
• Add the term “pensionable
  employment” in clause 30(1), to read:
  Subject to the provisions of this Act, a
  member shall retire from
  pensionable employment upon
  attaining pensionable age.
• The inclusion of retirement “from
  pensionable employment” provides the
  necessary qualification. That is, that it
  is not retirement from your employer
  but retirement from having to continue
  making contributions to the NPS.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 14 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  “pensionable employment”
  means employment in respect
  of which contributions are
  payable under this Act;
  (c) on the employee attaining the applicable
  retirement age, where the contract of
  employment is permanent in nature…”
• The Supreme Court of Zambia confirmed in
  Nyambe and Others v KCM (2023)that the
  retirement age between employer and employee is
  a matter for the contract of employment. This is
  why employers tailor inhouse retirement to the
  needs of the business. For instance, a physically
  demanding occupation may make the retirement
  age of 60, or even the early retirement age of 55,
  inappropriate for the nature of the work the
  employee was engaged for.
• The challenge we have had is reconciling this
  provision, which is a continuation from the current
  NPS Act, with the contractual aspects of
  “retirement” in the individual employment
  relationship. After all, there is no “State / national”
  retirement age in Zambia. Each Scheme has
  statutory provisions on “retirement” for their
  members, there is a separate retirement age for
  Constitutional office holders, and the Defense Act
  Cap 106 has multiple options for retirement for the
  armed services.
• It is thus important to avoid declaratory provisions
  in the law that create challenges for the
  employment relationship, such as the protracted
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 15 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  Court battle that led to the Nyambe & Others v
  KCM Supreme Court decision. It took five years for
  the case to move through the Superior Courts until
  a final position was given by the Supreme Court in

1. In the meantime, there was considerable
   uncertainty among employers and workers on
   what the “retirement age” was.

• The Constitutional Court of Zambia in Mwiinde v
  AG and NAPSA (2023) was called upon to
  pronounce itself on whether the delay under the
  NPS Act to provide benefits upon “retirement in
  national interest” was a breach of Article 187 of
  the Republican Constitution. The Court held that it
  was not, largely because NAPSA argued that if the
  Court did, the NPS would collapse. Retirement in
  national interest happened at any age, not the
  “pensionable age” under the NPS Act.
• NAPSA, ourselves and the Courts should not have
  to explain that “retirement” under the applicable
  pension scheme means eligibility for benefits from
  that scheme. It is not a mandatory contractual
  provision on retirement from their employer that
  their employer is bound to uphold, regardless of
  what are more appropriate conditions of service.
  This is the opportunity to clarify the concept of
  “retirement” in this Act.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 16 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. Applications for benefits:

• 39 (invalidity)
• 50 (Submission of claim
  for benefit)
• These provisions state that applications should be
  made to the Director General“for determination”.
  He is only the CEO of the Authority, and should not
  be identified as the officer to whom applications
  for benefits should be made and determined.
• Clause 8 is clear that the DG’s function is largely
  administrative. The Authority has the operational
  functions outlined in clause 5. The DG cannot
  therefore be singled out for powers that are
  already allocated to the Authority under clause 5.
• The correct formulation is in other provisions such
  as clause 25(10), which provides that it is the
  “Authority” that may waive a penalty. It also
  appears in clause 51, where a person who intends
  to access an advance payment of a pension shall
  apply to the Authority for the same.
• The administrative function of the DG is
  appropriately stated in the First Schedule, e.g. in
  relation tothe seal of the Authority.
• Replace “the Director General” with the
  “Authority”in all provisions where the
  power being exercised is reposed in the
  Authority itself and not one of its
  officers.
• Correct assignment of function will
  prevent ambiguities in the plain and
  literal interpretation of the legislation.

1. 61. Powers of inspectors
       (1) An inspector may, for the
       purpose of enforcing the
       provisions of this Act, at any
       reasonable time, without prior
       notice—
       …

• Document retention under the NPS Act has been a
  highly contentious matter for a long time. The
  current Cap 256 effectively hides this under the
  inspectors’ powers under section 7:
  (5) An inspector shall have power, on production
  of the identity card issued to him under
  subsection (4), to inspect any book, register,
  account, receipt or any document relating to
• We have submitted below in relation to
  paragraph 9 of the Second Schedule on
  the need to close off the 20% penalty at
  six years prior to December 2022,
  except for cases of fraud. A close off on
  document retention should have the
  same parameters.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 17 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  (c) have access to and inspect,
  examine and audit documents,
  books and records, or articles
  found on any land, building,
  premises or vehicle that have a
  bearing on an inspection or
  investigation;
  ** 65. General offenses
  (1) A person commits an
  offence if that person—
  …
  (d) without lawful excuse
  refuses or fails to provide
  information or produce a
  document when required to
  do so under this Act;
  contributions or to the provision to register or to
  contribute under this Act are being compiled
  with.
• Unfortunately,this Bill repeats this implied
  retention requirement under clause 61(1)(c)
  without establishing the obligation first.
• The Employment Code Act Cap 268 provides
  clearly in section 23(3) that:
  (3) An employer shall, where the employer
  terminates a written contract of employment,
  keep the contract for a period of five years
  after the termination.
• The Income Tax Act Cap 323 may not expressly
  identify a duration of document retention, but does
  establish the obligation under section 58:
  For the purpose of obtaining full information in
  respect of the income of any person or class of
  persons, the Commissioner-General may, by
  notice in writing, require, in the case of the
  income of any person, that person or any other
  person, and in the case of any class of persons,
  any person—
  (a) to produce for examination by the
  Commissioner-General, at such time and
  place as may be specified in such notice, any
  accounts, books of account and other
• Documentation retention period
  should expressly have a section and
  should be limited to 10 years. That
  would work with the six years we
  proposed below because there
  would be an additional four years of
  documents for NAPSA to investigate
  whether a fraud had been
  committed. There would also be
  certainty for employers on their
  exposure and retention
  requirements.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 18of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  documents which the Commissioner-General
  may consider necessary;
  (b) to produce forthwith for retention by the
  Commissioner-General for such period as
  may be reasonable for their examination any
  accounts, books of account and other
  documents which the Commissioner-General
  may specify in such notice;
  (c) not to destroy, damage or deface, on or after
  service of such notice, any of the accounts,
  books of account and other documents so
  specified without permission of the
  Commissioner-General in writing.
• The Zambia Revenue Authority and tax
  practitioners interpret and apply this provision in
  line with the tax limitation periods, being:
  o General tax records: At least 6 years from
  the end of the tax year to which they relate;
  and
  o Transfer pricing documentation: 10 years
• There must be a close off period to prevent fishing
  expeditions by NAPSA that inadvertently also
  reveal the Authority’s own failures in document
  retention.

1. 65. General offenses • The various enforcement mechanisms for failure to
       remit contributions appear to be:

• Guidelines on enforcement are
  essential so that there is transparency
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 19 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  (1) A person commits an
  offence if that person—
  …
  (c) fails to pay to the Scheme,
  within the period specified, any
  contribution which that person
  is liable to pay under
  this Act;
  …
  (2) A person who is convicted of
  an offence under this section is
  liable to a fine not exceeding
  two hundred thousand penalty
  units
  or to imprisonment for a term
  not exceeding two years, or to
  both.
  (i) Penalty – clause 25(8), with the
  possibility of waiver (25(10));
  (ii) Civil action – clause 25(9);
  (iii) Attachment of debt – clause 29;
  (iv) Imprisonment and/or fine – clause
  65(2); and
  (v) Criminal conviction and Court order to
  pay contributions and penalties – clause
  65(3).
• As indicated in relation to clause 39, we facilitated
  country-wide consultative meetings between
  NAPSA and employers in 2024 to discuss
  amendments to the NPS Act to enhance
  enforcement mechanisms.
• In relation to imprisonment, employers resolved
  that imprisonment was an outdated way of
  addressing non-compliance with labor-related
  legislation. It should be restricted to the most
  heinous of offenses, such as forced labor and for
  repeat offenders under the NPS Act.
• NAPSA responded that criminal prosecution was
  only used as the last resort when other
  enforcement mechanisms failed. They usually
  started with time to pay agreements to encourage
  settlement of the principal, followed by penalty
  waivers once the principal was paid.
  and certainty. Employers should be
  able to publicly access clear and
  consistent information on how the NPS
  Act, which provides a significant cost of
  doing business, will be enforced.
• Provide for the inclusion under
  subclause (2) of clause 67 for the
  power to prescribe guidelines on
  enforcement, including the time to pay
  agreements and the sequence of
  progressive enforcement mechanisms.
• Alternatively, provide a clause that
  empower NAPSA to issue guidelines in
  consultation with relevant
  stakeholders. TCLC is a good body for
  such consultations.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 20 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
• Unfortunately, there is nothing in the law to guide
  on that. It is only administrative practice which is
  known internally and can be changed without
  notice.
• Regarding the alternative to imprisonment of a
  penalty, employers submitted that there needed to
  be guidelines on scales tied to the size of the
  business. Principles of criminal sentencing were
  too general for a specialized matter like balancing
  business sustainability and social protection.
  Imprisonment for a micro business effectively
  means it will cease to exist because they are
  normally sole traders.
• Just as with attachment of debt at clause 39, there
  is no provision under this clause or clause 67 that
  enables the issuance of guidelines on enforcement.

1. 67. Regulations
2. (1) The Minister may, on the
   recommendation of the
   Authority, by statutory
   instrument, make Regulations
   for the better carrying out of
   the provisions of this Act.
   (2) Despite subsection (1),
   Regulations made under that

• Section 40 of the current NPS Act Cap 256 provides
  in part:
  … the Authority shall ensure that the Scheme is
  managed in accordance with the prudential
  management principles specified in the Pension
  Scheme Regulation Act.
• This means that technically, NAPSA should be
  subject to the Pension Scheme (Investment
  Guidelines) Regulations, SI No. 50 of 2021, which
  revoked and replaced SI No. 141 of 2011.
• The need to involve PIA in matters that
  affect the wider pensions subsector is
  clear from clause 11 on sub-schemes.
• Paragraph (j) of clause 67 must also be
  subject to consultation with PIA as the
  technical and regulatory expert on
  prudential management.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 21 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  subsection may provide for
  the—
  …
  (j)investment guidelines for
  the Scheme or a sub-scheme.
  ** Clause 56: Management of
  fund

1. (1) The Fund shall be
   managed and administered by
   the Authority.
   (2) The Authority shall ensure
   that prudent controls are
   established for the Fund
   relating to—
   (a) the fiscal management and
   accounting procedures
   governing the Fund;
   (b) the reporting procedures for
   matters relating to the Fund;
   and
   (c) the investment of the
   monies of the Fund.

• Inexplicably, however, a separate SI was
  promulgated under the NPS Act itself. That was the
  National Pension Scheme (Investment)
  Regulations, SI No. 19 of 2017. This was
  purportedly pursuant to the general power to
  prescribe regulations under section 53.
• We recognize that since 1996, the investment
  capacity of the NPS (both technical and financial)
  have increased exponentially. However, what has
  not changed is that the NPS is only one of the many
  pension schemes operating in the country, both
  private and public.
• The Pensions and Insurance Authority remains the
  regulator of private pension schemes, and there is
  an intention to include the supervision of public
  schemes within its mandate.
• The investment of public funds should not be left
  to the decision of the Minister and NAPSA. There
  must be wider consultation in the investment
  guidelines, to ensure transparency and prudent
  management of what is the most liquid pension
  fund in the country.
  FIRST SCHEDULE
  Part II: Financial provisions
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 22 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. Paragraph 9. Accounts
   Paragraph 10. Annual
   Report

• These two provisions are a duplication of clauses
  58 and 59 of the principal Act.
• Delete as appropriate.
  SECOND SCHEDULE
  Savings and Transitional Provisions

1. 3. Member of Board
   (1) A person who immediately
   before the commencement of
   this Act held office as a member
   of the Board of the former
   Authority shall continue to hold
   office as a member for a period
   of three months after which the
   Minister shall appoint members
   of the Board in accordance with
   this Act.

• Clarify whether Board members of the
  former Authority are eligible for
  appointment under the new Act, or will
  be subject to the two-term limit under
  paragraph 2(1) of Part I of the First
  Schedule.

1. 9. Penalties incurred prior
   to December 6th, 2022
   A contributing employer shall,
   in respect of contributions
   incurred before the 6th of
   December 2022, be liable to pay
   a penalty equal to twenty per
   cent of the amount unpaid,
   which penalty shall be added
   for each month or part thereof

• The lack of direct provision under the NPS Act on
  document retention has led to employers being
  caught unawares when NAPSA requests
  documents from over a decade ago.
• It is made worse in this Bill by paragraph 9 of the
  Second Schedule. NAPSA will find a miniscule sum
  from 15 years ago, add the 20% penalty, and then
  demand a ruinous sum from an employer whose
  returns had been accepted by NAPSA at the time of
  filing.
• Please see our recommendation at
  clause 61 above on document
  retention.
• Amend this provision under the
  Second Schedule to include a close
  off date of six years, in line with tax
  document retention and the
  Limitation Act 1939.
  ZFE SUBMISSIONS ON THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME BILL NO. 68 OF 2026 | 5.04.26
  Pa g e 23 of 23
  CLAUSE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION
  after the date the payment was
  due.
• There must be a limitation period to fully close off
  the financial risk for employers of NAPSA
  continuing this practice. It also forces NAPSA to be
  administratively efficient, and not accept returns
  one year only to conduct an audit and claim unpaid
  contributions years later.
• Add the exception of proven fraud
  similar to that under the Limitation
  Act 1939.

1. 10. Transfer of assets and
       liabilities
       (2) Subject to subparagraph
       (1), every deed, bond and
       agreement, other than an
       agreement for personnel
       service…

• The correct term is “personal service”,
  not “personnel service”.