eBusiness Weekly
Martin Kadzere
The National Social Security Authority (NSSA) management could be punished for failing to follow due process in paying retention allowances to its medical doctors, an internal audit, commissioned by the country’s largest pension fund has revealed.
The report found the State-owned pension fund did not follow the due process in implementing a board resolution to award its medical doctors a retention allowance.
At 115 percent of the basic salary of US$3 200, the allowance lifted doctors’ salaries to US$6 800. It came into effect on January 1, 2023, but has since been suspended.
The audit was requested by NSSA board chairperson, Dr Percy Toriro, through the audit committee to review the audit trail of the doctors’ retention allowances resolutions.
Toriro, a renowned urban planner, has since offered to step down citing his prolonged absence in the country. He has been out of the country since October last year.
The objective of the audit was to establish whether due governance process was followed in the award and payment of the retention allowances to NSSA medical doctors.
While the board resolved on November, 8, 2022 that the medical doctors be paid a retention allowance, conditions precedent were not met in full on implementation.
According to the audit report, there is no evidence of concurrence between the human resource committee and the finance committee on the final figures before payment.
One of the conditions states that human resource committee was to consult the finance committee on the proposed amounts. The consultation was to determine the financial capacity to pay.
“A Memo on the subject provided for but has no signatures on the space where the finance committee chair was supposed to sign,” said the report.
“The memo has recommendation signed by director finance and ICT.
“There is no evidence that the whole board was appraised of the proposed allowance amounts in line with the resolution. The audit confirmed with two sampled members of the board through mail and telephone interviews that the actual figures were not shared.
“Payment was done based on the approval of the human resources committee chair and the acting board chair,” added the report.
The resolution stated that the proposed figures should be shared with the main board.
Whereas another condition states the management was to provide the recommended amounts to the human resources, public relations and marketing committee, there is no evidence that management provided the recommended amounts.
However, the figures were shared with HR committee chairperson who approved them.
There was no evidence the finance committee was consulted on the proposed allowance amounts and that these were shared with the main board before payment.
“The board needs to reprimand management or prescribe appropriate sanctions for not following due process. The organisation has been battling a toxic environment and bad publicity for some time now and it is about time that normalcy be restored.”
On recommendations, the report said all conditions precedent stipulated on board resolutions should be fulfilled. It said the management should seek a new resolution should they wish to vary resolutions from set conditions.
“Management recommendations to (the) board should be supported by full information on all pertinent issues to minimise passing of conditional resolutions.
“This is important as it enables the board to make informed decisions. We note that the allowances have been suspended a situation which enables management to revisit this issue and follow the stipulated conditions of the resolution before implementation.”
