104. The Pension (Exemption) Order does not restrict the right to ‘a pension’ for domestic workers. The Order exempts domestic workers from the mandatory occupational pension scheme. The Order legitimately considers the informal nature of domestic work which makes it hard for domestic workers to be put on pension in the same manner as employees in formal employment. This is acknowledged by the ILO.1 105. Thirdly, the limitation must be ‘recognised by international human rights standards’. This phrase is broad. It could be interpreted to mean that the limitation in question must be recognised by international human rights law and by the domestic jurisdictions of democratic countries. To begin with, the ILO Convention No. 189 offers specific protection to domestic workers. It lays down basic rights and principles, and requires States to take a series of measures with a view to making decent work a reality for domestic workers. The Court took notice that in Africa, only two countries have ratified the ILO Convention No. 189, viz, Republic of South Africa and Mauritius. Other countries such as Algeria, Cabo Verde, Gabon, Kenya, Mauritania, Mali, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia and Zambia have some legal provision for social security coverage of domestic workers.2 We make a finding that the limitation of domestic workers from mandatory pension coverage is one which is recognized by domestic jurisdictions of democratic countries. 1 2 https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ensuring-protection-and-rights-domestic-workers-africa https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ensuring-protection-and-rights-domestic-workers-africa Page 38 of 45