Former Minister and Member of Parliament Annette Ferguson has welcomed the decision by attorney Christopher Ram, pensioner Kalicharan Heera and three trade unions to take the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) to court, describing the proceedings as an important opportunity to clarify pensioners’ entitlements and establish whether outstanding payments are owed.
In an interview with Village Voice News, Ferguson said she had raised the issue of retroactive payments to minimum-rate NIS pensioners in the National Assembly in December 2024, seeking to have outstanding entitlements for the period 2021 to 2023 addressed.
She welcomed the move to pursue the matter through the courts, saying it would allow the disputed interpretation of the law and the calculation of possible arrears to be examined judicially.
Ferguson recalled that on December 22, 2024, she submitted a motion calling for retroactive payments to minimum-rate NIS pensioners. The motion was seconded by her parliamentary colleague, Juretha Fernandes.
However, correspondence dated January 3, 2025, from the Clerk of the National Assembly, S.E. Isaacs, advised that the operative clause of the motion contravened Standing Order No. 25(1)(a) and (b).
Ferguson said the correspondence remained an important part of the public record, demonstrating that the issue had been raised in Parliament before the current legal proceedings.
Court asked to determine minimum pension
Attorney-at-law and chartered accountant Christopher Ram, pensioner Kalicharan Heera and three trade unions—the Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the United Minibus Union and the Guyana Market Vendors Union—have filed proceedings against the National Insurance Board, seeking a determination of the statutory minimum old-age pension and payment of alleged arrears.
At the centre of the dispute is Regulation 4(b) of the NIS Benefit Regulations. The applicants contend that it requires the minimum old-age pension to be no less than 50 per cent of the Public Service minimum wage.
According to figures cited in their application, the minimum pension should currently be $51,173 monthly, compared with the published minimum rate of $43,075. The difference amounts to an alleged shortfall of $8,098 per month for each pensioner receiving the minimum rate.
The applicants estimate that pensioners who received the minimum rate throughout the relevant period could be owed approximately $510,300 each. They are seeking an accounting of outstanding payments, arrears with interest and orders requiring the Board to comply with the law.
These figures and claims remain subject to the court’s determination.
The applicants also rely on section 34(2) of the National Insurance and Social Security Act, arguing that Parliament must provide funds to meet a temporary shortfall in the National Insurance Fund where necessary to satisfy its liabilities.
Pensioners’ interests at the centre
Ferguson said the proceedings concern more than the difference between two pension figures. They raise questions about the administration of a contributory social security system and the protection of people who paid into the Scheme throughout their working lives.
She stressed that pensioners, many of whom rely on fixed monthly incomes to meet the cost of food, medication and other essentials, deserve clarity about their benefits and confidence that the law is being followed.
“Supporting one group should not mean neglecting another. Pensioners who contributed to the NIS throughout their working lives deserve dignity, transparency and fair treatment.”
Ferguson said the court should be allowed to examine the legal questions and determine whether payments have fallen short of what the regulations require.
She also emphasised the importance of accountability when concerns are raised through Parliament, noting that the public should be able to understand how such matters are handled and what avenues remain available when they are not resolved.
Ferguson said the court proceedings provide an opportunity to clarify the National Insurance Board’s legal obligations and determine whether pensioners are owed outstanding payments.
She stressed that pensioners who contributed throughout their working lives deserve transparency and certainty about their entitlements, adding that accountability must extend to how public institutions administer benefits prescribed by law.
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for minimum-rate pensioners, with the court now tasked with determining whether the disputed payments comply with the governing legislation.
