No, there is no change to the retirement age in South Africa
National Treasury has dismissed the claims contained in an article gaining traction through WhatsApp forwards and Facebook reposts.
South Africa's retirement age has not been changed. Some online articles, including one published on Zerode.co.za, have said South Africa is implementing sweeping pension reforms – most notably a uniform retirement age of 65 for all citizens regardless of gender or employment sector, and effective from 30 May 2025.
The article gained traction through WhatsApp forwards and Facebook reposts, and further asserted that the government has confirmed new phased retirement options and that older workers will be able to draw partial pensions while continuing part-time employment.
None of this is supported by any gazetted legislation, parliamentary record or regulatory announcement.
What Treasury says
In response to detailed questions from Daily Maverick, National Treasury dismissed the claims.
'There is no standard retirement age that is set by government in South Africa,' it said. 'Employees in formal employment… have a retirement age that is determined by the employer and the relevant retirement fund, which is not prescribed by government.'
Treasury also confirmed there are no planned changes to the old age grant – which remains available from the age of 60 for men and women – and that the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) still permits retirement from age 60 for public servants.
Where did this rumour begin? This round of confusion appears to follow the earlier circulation of a fake version of the Public Service Amendment Regulations. That document, distributed on Facebook, falsely claimed that the retirement age for government employees would be increased to 70, but was linked to no official source.
Here's the law South African law does not prescribe a universal retirement age. In the private sector, retirement age is defined by employment contracts or pension fund rules. In the absence of such terms, section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act provides that dismissing someone for age is only legally fair if they've reached the 'normal or agreed retirement age' for their role.
In the public sector, the governing legislation is the Public Service Act of 1994, which sets the normal retirement age at 60 and allows early retirement from 55. These provisions remain unchanged.
Risky assumptions Labour lawyer Avi Niselow, who has represented both employers and employees in retirement-related disputes, confirmed the legal position – and the practical risk of relying on online claims – in an interview with Daily Maverick.
'We've never had a mandatory national retirement age,' Niselow said. 'That misconception has landed employers in court before. If there's no agreed age in the contract or fund policy, forcing someone out at 65 could amount to automatically unfair dismissal.'
He added: 'It's not about what's common practice in the industry or what's trending on WhatsApp. It's about what's in writing. If it's not contractually agreed, the employer is exposed.'
He also warned of the fallout for employees: 'If someone resigns based on false assumptions – thinking new pension access rules are already in place – the damage could be irreversible. You don't get to undo that.'
The final word There is no legal basis for the claim that South Africa is implementing a universal retirement age of 65 from 30 May 2025.
Treasury, the GEPF and labour law experts confirm that no such change exists – and that acting on misinformation could lead to legal exposure and irreversible financial harm. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
South African GDP grows by a paltry 0.1% in Q1, but agriculture shines
One thing that is as certain as the changing seasons is that as the year progresses, forecasts for South African economic growth in 2025 – which are mostly around 1.2% – will be downgraded, which in turn will blow out of the water many of the revenue and debt projections in Budget 3.0. South Africa's sluggish economy barely grew in the first quarter (Q1) of this year, expanding a pathetic 0.1% from Q4 of 2024, according to data released on Tuesday by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). This 'growth' – at a pace that a snail could slither past – would have been a contraction of 0.3% were it not for a stellar performance by the agricultural sector, which grew its production by a hefty 15.8% in the first three months of the year. Following gross domestic product (GDP) growth of just 0.4% in Q4 of 2024 – revised down from an initial estimate of 0.6% – the data underscores the woeful state of South Africa's economy, which simply cannot seem to expand at a rate that exceeds population growth and creates jobs. Against this backdrop, it's no surprise that South Africa's unemployment rate rose one percentage point in Q1 to 32.9%. Worryingly, only four of the 10 industries on the production side of the economy posted growth, led by agriculture, a sector that is also extremely volatile. Agriculture biggest growth driver South Africa's descent into deindustrialisation was writ large in the data, with the manufacturing and mining sectors the biggest drags on the read, declining 2.0% and 4.1% respectively. Consumer spending perked up – helped by lower interest rates, slowing inflation and early pension drawdowns under the two-pot reforms – but it hardly shot the lights out. 'Consumer activity was stronger, with trade, catering & accommodation expanding by 0.5%. Retail trade, motor trade, accommodation and food & beverages contributed positively,' Stats SA said. Changes in GDP contributions Gross fixed capital expenditure – a key measure of investment – maintained its downward trajectory, falling 1.7%. And without investment growth, the economy will remain stuck in a rut. 'Consumer demand likely received a small boost from lower rates, higher disposable incomes given still-low inflation and pension reform. But none of this is sufficient to offset the soft outlook still painted by dismal investment. From this data alone, there is no clear indication that it might be reasonable to expect more robust growth going forward,' said Razia Khan, Chief Economist Africa at Standard Chartered Bank in London. Indeed, the outlook for Q2 is already troubling. What this means South Africa cannot attract investment, create jobs and reduce poverty without significantly faster rates of economic growth. Many of the country's crippling social ills, including rampant crime, are at least partly a reflection of this woeful pace of growth. This deprives the government of revenue, forcing it to borrow more, raising its debt-servicing costs – leaving it with less to spend on things such as education, welfare and health – in a vicious cycle that shows no sign of ending soon. The Absa Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell 1.6 points in May to 43.1 – pointedly, its lowest level since the Covid-19 pandemic. This marked the seventh consecutive month that the PMI was in contractionary territory below the neutral 50 mark and bodes ill for the sector's performance this quarter. The return of the rolling power cuts, popularly known as 'load shedding', after a 310-day pause in Q1 did not help matters, but the economy has been trapped in slow-growth mode for years. There are a range of reasons for this depressing state of affairs, which continues to fuel the terrible trifecta of poverty, unemployment and inequality. Policy uncertainty continues to deter investment, along with mounting concerns about reliable water supplies and a crumbling road, rail and port network. Transnet is showing promising signs of a management turnaround, but it still has a mountain to climb. A high tax burden with little to show for it hardly inspires confidence. Sky-high levels of violent crime and the security costs that go with that are constraints to growth, while South Africa's failing public schools add up to a chronic skills shortage. And amid these domestic challenges and many more, the outlook for the global economy has been souring, not least because of US President Donald Trump's bewildering tariff 'policies' that top the ANC and the GNU in the League of Uncertainty. One thing that is as certain as the changing seasons is that as the year progresses, forecasts for South African economic growth in 2025 – which are mostly around 1.2% – will be further downgraded, which in turn will blow out of the water many of the revenue and debt projections in Budget 3.0.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Mixed news at the pump: fuel levy rises while prices drop
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the EFF's urgent bid to block a controversial fuel levy hike—just as fuel prices dip. From midnight, levies rise by 16c (petrol) and 15c (diesel), despite constitutional questions. It's a pump paradox: taxpayers pay more, but pump prices briefly fall. In a ruling handed down yesterday, Judge Nathan Erasmus found that the EFF's application lacked urgency and did not meet the legal threshold for interim relief. The court did not engage with the broader constitutional challenge itself, which the EFF had previously framed in its initial filing as a possible Part B of its legal strategy. A tax fight rooted in Budget 3.0 The levy increase was announced in Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's revised Budget 3.0, tabled in May following the political fallout and eventual withdrawal of VAT hikes in earlier budget versions. Treasury estimates the fuel levy will raise about R4-billion in the 2025/26 fiscal year. The EFF has argued that the use of Section 48(1) of the Customs and Excise Act to implement the fuel levy increase amounts to an unconstitutional bypassing of Parliament. Section 77 of the Constitution requires that all new taxes be passed via a money Bill through the National Assembly. Arguments on constitutional compliance Representing the EFF, Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto told the court: 'The fact that this has happened before does not make it lawful. Past practice is not a substitute for constitutional compliance.' He described the move as a case of 'taxation without representation.' The Treasury, represented by Advocate Kameel Premhid, countered that Section 48(1) had long been used lawfully to adjust fuel levy schedules. He argued the measure was an administrative amendment within an existing framework, not the introduction of a new tax requiring legislative approval. What this means for you For consumers, the fuel levy increase translates into higher petrol and diesel prices at the pump, effective immediately. This could lead to broader knock-on effects on transport costs, food prices and inflation, particularly for lower-income households who spend a greater share of their income on fuel-linked expenses. Treasury maintains the hike is necessary to address fiscal gaps left by the abandoned VAT proposal. The fuel levy increase will be offset by a decrease in fuel prices – which also kicks in on Wednesday, 4 June. The Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) announced the following price decreases yesterday: Petrol 93 (ULP & LRP): ⬇️5cents/litre. Petrol 95 (ULP & LRP): ⬇️5 cents/litre. Diesel (0.05% sulphur): ⬇️ 36.9 cents/litre. Diesel (0.005% sulphur): ⬇️36.9 cents/litre. Commenting on the changes, the DMPR noted that over the last month, there has been a decrease in the average Brent Crude oil price from US$66.40 to US$63.95, largely on the back of continued global trade uncertainty, Parliament distances itself from the damage Parliament, which was cited in the court papers, but not the target of any relief, issued a brief statement after the judgment: 'Although cited in the application, no relief was sought against Parliament. Parliament's position throughout the proceedings was to abide by the outcome of the court process. Accordingly, Parliament will comply with the court's ruling.' Oversight loophole or legal mechanism? In its legal representations, Treasury has argued that Section 48(6) of the Act ensures Parliamentary oversight by requiring the amended tariff to be tabled after the fact. The EFF, however, contends this form of post-implementation tabling falls short of the constitutional threshold for public finance legislation. EFF's Part B remains unclear In a short statement on X after the ruling, the EFF said: 'We are committed to fighting the fuel levy increase in court and in Parliament.' However, the party did not explicitly confirm that it would pursue the Part B constitutional review. Whether the EFF returns to court or not, the broader legal and political debate over fiscal authority, oversight and the democratic control of taxation is likely to persist. DM
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
Only a fraction of the R500 million has been disbursed
JOHANNESBURG - Government's new spaza shop support fund is disbursing money. The fund was set up to help revitalize South African-owned spaza shops and food outlets in townships and rural areas. It came after a national disaster was declared late last year after more than 20 children died from food-borne illnesses after eating food from spaza shops.
