Your pension fund is in trouble, and it’s not just a small dent. The Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) has revealed a staggering N$1.5 billion in potential losses since 2008, leaving many wondering what this means for their retirement savings. But here’s where it gets even more unsettling: this figure includes the N$1 billion loss reported by The Namibian in November, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Documents obtained recently show that the fund’s trustees were warned last year about losses nearing N$618 million, with some investments written down to zero. And this is the part most people miss: while the fund’s total assets have grown from N$35 billion in 2008 to N$182.1 billion today, these losses raise serious questions about its management and long-term sustainability.
Edwin Tjiramba, GIPF’s corporate affairs executive, confirmed the N$1.5 billion figure, explaining that it represents cumulative impairments from March 2008 to March 2025. But he also pointed out that these losses must be viewed in the context of the fund’s massive portfolio. Impairments, or losses in asset value, can occur due to poor performance, market shifts, or other factors. But here’s the controversial part: while Tjiramba argues that such losses are inevitable in investing, critics argue that the scale and frequency of these impairments suggest deeper systemic issues.
Early signs of trouble were evident in the 2023/24 financial year, when the fund recorded a total loss of N$618 million. Specific investments like NamPro Fund I and II, Namibia Mid-Cap Fund, and South Suez Africa Fund suffered significant impairments. Even more alarming, N$12.6 million was completely written off, with funds like Kongalend Renewable Energy Fund Trust and Ariya Bridge Capital Trust Fund valued at zero. But here’s where it gets controversial: while GIPF claims some of these losses were later reversed, labor expert Herbert Jauch argues that these recurring losses point to systemic failures rather than isolated incidents.
Jauch highlights GIPF’s immense power in shaping Namibia’s investment landscape and criticizes the growing trend of offshore investments. Bold question for you: Is it wise to invest workers’ savings outside Namibia while domestic savings continue to leave the country? Jauch insists that the bulk of investments should remain within Namibia to drive local economic development. He also questions whether lessons from the Development Capital Portfolio (DCP) era have been fully learned.
Trust in the fund is eroding, according to Mahongora Kavihuha of the Teacher’s Union of Namibia (TUN). He accuses the board of disregarding members and calls for greater public accountability, including mandatory annual general meetings and elected trustees. Controversial take: Kavihuha also criticizes the Namibia Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (Namfisa) for what he sees as lenient oversight of GIPF, asking whether regulators are playing favorites with government-backed institutions.
Business Financial Solutions (BFS), which manages the NamPro Funds, denies awareness of the impairments recorded by GIPF and defends its performance, citing the economic challenges faced by small businesses post-pandemic. But here’s the counterpoint: while BFS claims its reporting has been comprehensive, critics argue that transparency and accountability remain lacking.
As GIPF faces scrutiny over stalled legacy projects and underperforming investments, the question remains: Can the fund regain public trust and ensure long-term sustainability for its members? What do you think? Is GIPF doing enough to protect your pension, or is it time for a major overhaul? Let us know in the comments below.
