Every day, millions of Malawians wake up to serve their country in different ways.
Some work in government offices, schools and hospitals while others are employed by banks, manufacturing companies, media houses, farms, shops and other private businesses.
Together, they pay taxes, drive economic growth and contribute to national development.
Yet when retirement comes, their treatment is often very different.
Civil servants in Malawi have historically enjoyed a retirement package consisting of two major benefits: A monthly pension for life and a gratuity—a lump-sum payment that the law expects to be paid within three months of retirement.
Although government has sometimes struggled with delays due to budget constraints and systemic inefficiencies, retired public servants are still entitled to both benefits.
For many private-sector employees, however, the story is different.
Before 2011, there was no legal requirement for private employers to provide pension benefits. That changed with the enactment of the Pension Act, which made pension membership compulsory for eligible employees.
Under the current law, employers contribute 7.5 percent of an employee’s gross monthly earnings while employees contribute five percent. The Act also requires employers to maintain life insurance for employees.
These reforms ensured that thousands of workers who previously had no retirement security could begin saving for old age.
However, the progressive law stops short of requiring employers to pay gratuity. Whether a private-sector employee receives gratuity depends entirely on an individual employment contract or company policy.
In many organisations, no gratuity is paid at all.
This creates a noticeable gap between the public and private sectors.
Government employees generally retire with both a monthly pension and a gratuity. Most private-sector employees retire with only whatever has accumulated in their pension fund through contributions and investment returns.
While pension savings may provide a lump sum upon retirement, it is not the same as a guaranteed gratuity.
Historically, this difference can be explained. The civil service pension and gratuity scheme existed long before pension legislation covered the private sector. Government assumed responsibility for looking after its retired employees through the national budget, while the private sector relied on individual employers to decide whether to offer retirement benefits.
But history alone should not determine fairness.
Private-sector workers contribute just as much to Malawi’s development. They pay taxes, create wealth, generate employment and sustain industries that form the backbone of the economy.
Their efforts help finance public services and government programmes through tax revenue.
It is, therefore, understandable that many feel disadvantaged when they discover that colleagues in the public service receive retirement packages that are generally more generous.
This does not necessarily mean government employees should lose their gratuity.
Rather, the conversation should focus on whether the retirement protection of private-sector workers should be strengthened.
One option could be encouraging employers to include gratuity provisions in employment contracts. Another could involve policymakers reviewing whether some form of mandatory retirement lump-sum benefit should complement existing pension savings, while ensuring that businesses remain financially sustainable.
At the same time, policymakers must also consider workers who remain outside the pension system altogether. Current legislation excludes employees in businesses with five or fewer workers, domestic workers and seasonal workers. Although the Constitutional Court recently upheld these exclusions as constitutional, they leave many hardworking Malawians without formal retirement protection.
As Malawi continues pursuing inclusive economic growth, retirement security should become part of the national conversation. The country has made commendable progress by introducing compulsory pensions, but there is still room to improve fairness across the labour market.
The question is no longer whether private-sector employees deserve retirement protection—they already have it. The real question is whether that protection is sufficient when compared to the contribution they make to the nation’s prosperity.
After all, building Malawi is a shared responsibility. Perhaps the rewards of a lifetime of service should reflect that shared contribution more equally.
