Parliamentary Pensions: Why All the Facts Matter

The issue with parliamentary pensions is not whether they’re contributory, but the age of eligibility. Government must act to show that the same pension criteria apply equally to all citizens

By Prakash Neerohoo

Parliamentary pension has become a subject of debate, if not controversy, since the government proposed in the 2025-2026 Budget to increase the age eligibility for old-age pension (known officially as Basic Retirement Pension) from 60 to 65 years over five years. There is a public perception of differential treatment for ordinary citizens and Members of Parliament regarding retirement pension. It is important to dispel all doubts or misconceptions about this subject by getting all the facts straight.

The parliamentary pension, in its current form, is seen as a privilege unmatched in other countries. Just imagine: a person elected as a Member of Parliament (MP) at the age of 25 could receive a retirement pension — equivalent to two-thirds of their salary — by the age of 35, after serving only two terms.

In theory, the two terms combined will cover 10 years, but in practice they may be less than 10 years if Parliament does not run its full mandate of five years in one term. That happened in 1983 when the Legislature was dissolved nine months after national elections in June 1982. Some MPs elected in 1982 (for a first term of 9 months) and 1983 (for a second term of five years) qualified for their pension after less than 6 years.

Mr Adrien Duval, the PMSD best-loser MP, is the perfect example of a beneficiary of that privilege. He served a first term of 5 years (2014-2019) and a second term of 78 days in 2024 thanks to his appointment as Speaker under an MSM-PMSD government. He said that he was willing to give up that privilege if the law were amended.

To be logical with himself, he should propose an amendment to the National Assembly (Retiring Allowances) Act to provide that parliamentary pension be payable from age 60 or 65. He can do it by proposing an amendment to the Budget Appropriation Bill 2025-26 that provides for public expenditure, including the payment of parliamentary pension to former MPs.

I am sure that if he proposed such an amendment, the government would have no reason to turn it down. It would be a political point for both Adrien Duval and the government at a time when people are disgruntled with austerity measures, especially the proposed measure to increase the age eligibility for old age pension from 60 to 65 years. It would send a signal to the public that the government is curbing MPs’ privileges by aligning the eligibility age for parliamentary pension on the eligibility age for old age pension.

The Minister of Land Transport Osman Mohamed defended the parliamentary pension in a speech in Parliament by saying that the pension is contributory. This is a fact because under section 3 of the National Assembly (Retiring Allowances) Act of 1976, an MP must contribute 6% of his salary to a pension fund. He said that he contributes Rs 26,000 per month to a pension fund and other social security plans. He estimated that after three terms (15 years) he would have contributed Rs 5 million to the various funds. His case may be atypical as not many MPs serve three or more terms.

The point in dispute about parliamentary pension is not whether it is contributory or not. It is the age eligibility. Government needs to do something about it to send a signal to the public that the same criteria for pension eligibility (whether retirement pension or Old Age Pension) would apply to all citizens.

At this stage, nobody knows all the facts about parliamentary pension or even pensions payable to former presidents and vice-presidents. For example, we don’t know:

1. How many former MPs are drawing the parliamentary pension?
2. How many are drawing it after 2 or more terms?
3. What is the annual budget for parliamentary pension?
4. Who manages the pension fund for MPs?
5. Are all the contributions of 6% made by MPs invested in a fund that carries a return on investment (bank deposits, bonds or stocks)?
6. Do accumulated contributions plus investment return cover all annual payouts from the fund?
7. If the pension fund has an unfunded liability in a year, does the government cover the shortfall from the Consolidated Revenue Fund?
8. How many spouses of former MPs are drawing a parliamentary pension as survivor benefit?
9. Do former MPs pay income tax at applicable rates on the sum of their parliamentary pension, old age pension if any and any emoluments they may be getting as professionals in private practice or as directors in public institutions or enterprises?
10. What amount of retirement pension (tax-free by the way) is paid to former presidents and vice-presidents of the Republic?
11. Do former presidents and vice-presidents who were MPs in the past also draw a parliamentary pension on top of their retirement pension?

If there was a Freedom of Information Act, any citizen could have requested the above information from the government. No MP would request such information in Parliament for obvious reasons. But for the sake of transparency, government should disclose all relevant information. I don’t think that the Official Secrets Act would apply to parliamentary pensions as we already know the quantum of emoluments paid to MPs.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 27 June 2025