ZimPIRT

07/04/2022

In response to the assertion that “An estimated 60% of CBD office space is vacant after demand plunged significantly last year, experts have said. Businesses are opting for office parks and suburban offices with residential areas like Eastlea, Belvedere, Alexandra Park and Belgravia.”
Demand for office space plunged firstly because the environment for business to thrive isn’t conducive (Covid lockdowns, an unworkable deceitful imposed RTGS currency, disorderly & undisciplined markets where for instance vendors/hucksters can swamp OK supermarkets, street touts). Secondly demand for office space plunged because because businesses, particularly sophisticated business no longer need to be physically ‘close’ to the markets (buyers & suppliers), the internet & IT, instead facilitating this ‘closeness’. The sophisticated businesses will therefore not stand the chaos & dirt in Harare CBD for instance. Finally the bigger businesses, more particularly insurance companies and related businesses, can no longer aggressively market to the retail end of the market as they used to in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This is because while disposable income has gone low, the general public has completely lost confidence in pensions & insurance after insurance companies aided by a criminal ZanuPF Gvt cheated them of their long-time investments in pensions & insurance. Any one investing in these sectors & financial services overall is doing it out of ignorance of current affairs in pensions & insurance. Insurance companies therefore have no real need for offices in CBD, with no real need for new business, as they have surplus funds that they are stealing from pensioners

06/04/2022

In response to Mthuli Ncube’s tweet message “Compensation for Zimbabwe pensioners for 2019 currency reforms”; ZimPIRT submits that has amply proved that pension funds & insurance companies, with the protection of a bribed ZanuPF Gvt, are stealing from pensioners. The Finance Minister is a mere election campaign gimmick in the face of the just ended by-elections and in the face of 2023 elections - for if he was genuine, pensioners should long have been compensated after their cry of foul in 2009. The entire ZanuPF Gvt institutions set to oversee pensions & insurance industries including are in thrall to insurance companies. The institutions have for some time been structured to steal from pensioners & insurance policyholders. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners are in destitution, completely blocked & unprotected by a vile greedy ZanuPF Gvt. The laws governing pensions & insurance industries, notably Pensions & Provident Funds Act, the Insurance Act, the IPEC Act, are brazenly being meddled with in to allow for pensioner prejudice. Unfortunately for the pensioners, the opposition of note, is not confronting the ZanuPF Gvt with progressive pensions & insurance election campaign themes.
There’s already suspicions that is already captured by the insurance companies as campaign funds are dangled in their face. This suspicion is justified as in ZimPIRT’s estimates upwards of US$ 20 billion has been pumped into the pensions sector alone by pensioners & pension fund members. needs to come out in the open about whether or not they intend to save the long-running Zimbabwe pensions & insurance industries (which was second only to South Africa) In the process pensioner restitution will be mitigated

30/03/2022

Insurance companies/Pension Funds play delay tactics – as pensioners appeal to the courts
By
Martin Tarusenga
When it conclusively emerged that Insurance and Pension Commission (IPEC) and the Finance Ministry would not compensate pensioners and insurance policyholders as per the 2018 Justice Smith Commission of Inquiry report and as per the Finance Minister undertaking to compensate pensioners for losses incurred by Statutory Instrument 33 of 2019, all pensioner expectations in IPEC, Finance Ministry and Government were dashed off. In the event, pensioners have resolved to appeal to the courts for settlement of their rightful benefits from pension funds and from insurance contracts.
Expert witnesses are advising the pensioners and insurance policyholders on the quantum of benefits due, on the parties to be sued and on the choice of legal counsel to be engaged. Several pensioner and policyholder cases have been lodged with the courts, against insurance companies as issuers of insurance policies, and as administrators and underwriters of pension and insurance funds, against Pension Funds and their Boards of Trustees, as the ultimate authorities of pension fund institutions.
In one case a pensioner is suing for US$85,000 (or the equivalent RTGS at prevailing rate of the date), after the insurance company in question initially offered US$50, for a personal pension plan that had been running for 20 years, at a monthly premium level of US$20, and after the insurance company had varied the terms of the pension plan unilaterally and unbeknown to this pensioner.
In another case, the estate of a pensioner who passed on in 2021, is suing for a similar amount due from two policies issued by another insurance company, for payment of US$2,000 annual premiums, 23 years ago at time of maturity. The insurance company offered US$7 for the two policies. Despite the late old man’s repeated appeals to the insurance company since 2013, based on advice from experts, the incumbent insurance company failed, refused and/or neglected to consider the pension benefits until his demise. In yet another case for a deceased pensioner, her estate is suing for US$105,000 worth of pension benefits accrued in employer sponsored pension funds over 24 years of her working career, and invested in pension preservation vehicles offered by the same insurance company. The insurance company offered US$2 equivalent of Zim$ monthly pension payments which it actually never fulfilled. Again despite her repeated appeals to the insurance company since 2013, based on advice from experts, the incumbent insurance company failed, refused and/or neglected to consider the pension benefits until her demise.
In many other cases pensioners are suing for pension underpayments over the years, when monthly pension payments have successively fallen from higher initial payments on retirement, to negligible RTGS denominated monthly pensions, in breach of pension management practices. In one case, a pensioner for instance retired in 1993 on a monthly pension of Zim$3,988.28 (or US$610 at the time). With successive unilateral reductions, the pensioner is on RTGS 4,000 monthly payments or US$20.
All these pension cases now suing in court, are at various court stages in court procedures. Some are awaiting responses from the insurance companies and/or pension funds as defendants – which responses could be pleas of defence, call for out of court settlements, or other. Others are awaiting Round Table discussions as court requirements, others court pre-trials and others are awaiting higher level court hearings. Still others are awaiting court judgments.
In bids to wither pensioner surge to secure their rightful pension benefits, and sweep the matter under the carpet for ever, it is apparent that insurance companies and pension funds, as defendants, are engaging in tactics to defer arguments about whether or not they paid pensioners and policyholders correctly. Instead they are seeking to delay such court determinations by calling for the court to first make determinations on whether or not the cases are not subject to peripheral laws such as the Prescription Act, Replication among others. It is further apparent that insurance companies have captured the Finance Ministry and IPEC in order to suppress pension compensation, and directly control changes in relevant legislation such as the Pension and Provident Funds Act to unjust pieces of legislation working in their favour. It is for this reason that the latter Act was passed in the National Assembly without pensioner interests and with provisions to prejudice pensioner directly, to the Senate.

24/03/2022

IPEC to dissolve 350 pension funds businesstimes.co.zw/ipec-to-dissol… Dissolution of 350 pension funds on grounds that they are funds in unsound financial contributions (Section 19 Pensions & Provident Funds Act) is too many. This decision directly proves incompetence in accordance with the same section 19, read together with Sections 10, 14 & 17. is in terms of these sections mandated to regularly competently assess the pension funds for financial soundness. 350 funds are unsound because of their incompetence.
The members of these pension funds and pensioners cannot be penalised for incompetence.
What’s worse, the definition of Section 19, ie “Fund in unsound financial condition” is opaque when compared to similar provisions of progressive jurisdictions. It gives too much latitude, but without corresponding responsibility and accountability. Such is the state of this Act of Parliament & the Pension & Provident Funds Amendment Bill, recently passed to the Senate. Any members of these 350 funds must appeal in order that this decision is set aside

15/03/2022

Pension rights abuse breach of Constitution
Martin Tarusenga March 12, 2014
The Finance minister’s failure to stop pension rights abuse by insurance companies, by Insurance and Pension Commission (IPEC) and by his ministry, has to date shown up as poor performance in his job.
This suggests that he may not have been appointed on merit, or the President failed to identify this ineptitude on appointing him.
On the other hand, the President’s apparent indifference firstly to the minister’s poor performance, and secondly to the serious plight of pensioners whose rights are being abused, has shown up apparent self-interest in governing Zimbabwe — not governing in public interest.
Apart from this apparent condoning of poor performance by his minister, conclusions that the President is not governing in the public interest, have also been premised on observations that he does “. . . not seem committed to get rid of the widespread corruption in his Government, as exposed by the SalaryGate scandals, and observations that successive Zimbabwe Governments since independence have avoided, indeed resisted, the use of transparent professionally executed public inquiries to resolve national crises such as this pension benefit stand-off, where members of the public cry to government for the truth (and justice thereof).”
Considering that the President cannot be indicted, and can so condone his minister thereby maintaining the abusive status quo, there is a case for pensioners and other of the members of the public to urgently lobby the Parliament of Zimbabwe, herein the Legislature, for a review of current pension, insurance and social security legislation, and curb pension rights abuse.
Section 131 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution read together with the Fifth Schedule, makes provision on how proposals for change in Acts of Parliament, and Bills thereof, can be introduced into Parliament.
Do the pensioners have a chance for relief when it is considered that this Constitution, one way or the other, provides that unfettered, but undemocratic authority to the President in the appointment of all key positions in Government and private sector?
For starters, Section 116 of Chapter 6 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution, Part I, for instance, provides that the President is intrinsically a part of Parliament, the Legislature, specifying that “The Legislature of Zimbabwe consists of Parliament and the President acting in accordance with this Chapter.”
If the President is averse to removing the loopholes in the current pension and insurance legislation, in scenarios when he, personally benefits by maintaining his errant Finance minister, he can use his power as President, and his dual undemocratic role in both the Executive and the Legislature to prevail, undemocratically, on the Legislature, and maintain the loopholes in current pension and insurance legislation, that are the cause of agony to pensioners.
The Legislature is therefore not independent of the President, and therefore of the Executive, and this lobby might not be succesful.
But supposing the Legislature, herein Parliament, has a measure of independence from the President and the Executive, and stands firm against the President’s decision to maintain the loopholes, and hence to maintain his minister. In the these circumstances it is incumbent upon the President, in terms of Section 131, to refer any such disagreements between him and the Legislature over proposed changes in Acts of Parliament (Bills), to a Constitutional Court.
If this is done, the President can, and will still prevail on the Legislature, as he can still put pressure on members of the Constitutional Court to rule in his favour, as these members are appointed more or less unilaterally by the President.
The Constitutional Court consists of (a) the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice; and (b) five other judges of the Constitutional Court (Section 166); where in accordance with Section 180 “(1) The Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, the Judge President of the High Court and all other judges are appointed by the President.
Members of the Constitutional Court must therefore, rationally, be beholden to the President, for being in this job. It is exactly the same as all employees would be beholden to their employers.
The members of the Constitutional Court are to all intents and purposes, therefore not neutral; the President can apply that manipulative pressure, indeed threaten, bulldoze the Constitutional Court to rule in his favour.
The loopholes in current pension and insurance legislation, allowing the abuse of pension rights by insurance companies, IPEC and by the Finance Ministry would in this event, be maintained, if indeed the President benefits one way or the other from the abusive state of affairs in the pension, insurance and social security services.
More important, however, this provision by the Constitution of Zimbabwe for the President to appoint members of the Constitutional Court is firstly in breach of established rational principles and practices of good corporate governance, requiring such a Court to be neutral. Secondly it is blatant flagrant breach of the Founding Provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as laid out in Chapter 1, item 1(h) and item 2, and in breach of the National Objectives on good governance as laid out in Chapter 2, main item 9, sub item 1 and 2.
In effect the abuse of pensioner rights are apparently serious breaches of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, that need an urgent constitutional review.

14/03/2022

Rating social security in Zimbabwe

Several members of the public have approached Zimbabwe Pensions & Insurance Rights Trust (ZimPIRT for advice on various issues of pensions and insurance. A more recent peculiar inquiry has been about which products and services in pensions & insurance service provision (or social security system) one can invest in with safety equal to similar investments in the EU or US. ZimPIRT has responded that in Zimbabwe the entire social security system has for the past 30 years been defaulting on its obligations to contributors, despite that the contributors would have faithfully contributed as contractually & legally required. ZimPIRT has irrefutably established that this is the case. With a membership of 6,000+, each with an average contribution/membership period of 25 years, ZimPIRT established that pension funds and insurance companies are casually refusing to honour on their obligations. A commission of inquiry set up by Zimbabwe Gvt at the behest of ZimPIRT in 2015 to determine prejudice & compensation thereof would not be conclusive. Meddling with the inquiry by Gvt officials would be reported. Gvt itself would be implicated in protecting pension funds and insurance companies from the dire consequences they face over this default. Evidence is now emerging that Zimbabwe Gvt was bribed by insurance companies in various ways into not holding pension funds and insurance companies to account. Senior officers at the regulatory authority Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC) are publicly known to have worked as executives of insurance companies for a long time, prejudicing large numbers of pensioners and pension fund members of pension funds and insurance policies they administered and underwrite. Their interests are evidently not aligned to the regulatory interest and are to suppress any pensioner compensation and default on obligations to pension fund members pensioners alike. Regulation of pension and insurance service provision is therefore permissive with regards accounting of pension and insurance funds, with regards their solvency, their investments & investment management, benefit indexing and record keeping. Long time investors in pension funds and insurance policies have resorted to taking various parties to court to have their rightful benefits honoured. Court class actions are on the cards. As a result of the impunity with which pension funds, insurance companies and Gvt have defaulted on obligations to contributors, any monies invested in the social security system is certain to be lost as soon as the investment is made. In consequence all social security investment (NSSA, private occupational pension funds, insurance, etc) is categorically high risk, and not worth trying. No social security investment in Zimbabwe is anywhere near the equivalently EU’s A1 Certificate or the US’s Certificate of Coverage. Those Zimbabweans seeking to cover themselves in old age or other adversities of life would, for the time being, have to seek such coverage in the EU or US.

15/02/2022

Fundamental flaws in the IPEC Amendment Bill
The report “Move to cushion pensioners, insurance policyholders” (Herald) reports that the Insurance and Pensions Amendment Bill seeks to establish a Policyholder and Pensions and Provident Fund Members Protection Fund, among other things. In rather sweeping statements, it is reported that the Fund serves as Government objective to instil confidence in the insurance and pensions industry. This will be ensured as “.. the Fund will protect policyholders in the event that insurance companies go under”.
This report comes as Veritas has already condemned the Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC) Amendment Bill overall as inaccurately drafted. It is Zimbabwe Pensions and Insurance Rights Trust (ZimPIRT) submission that the IPEC Amendment Bill is not explicitly provided for with regards to the following;
 Objectives of the Commission (Section 3) - without provision of the established objectives of pensions and insurance service provision
 Any accountabilities
 Section 4 (Functions and powers of Commission) – without any reference to the typical functions of a pension and insurance regulator
 Section 5 (Board of Commission) – without any basis or rationale for this term
It is apparent that this IPEC Amendment Bill is drafted in alignment with the Pension and Provident Funds Bill, gazetted in 2020, by and large being arbitrary and divisive in its governance provisions. The Pension and Provident Funds Bill had on six occasions (over the past seven years) been rejected by pensioners as the key stakeholders. It was again hotly contested by pensioners, in a Parliament-held National Consultation in April 2021, after it was gazetted behind pensioner’s backs. The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Finance and Economic Development would agree to submissions made by Pensioners through ZimPIRT to be incorporated in this 2020 gazetted Bill. Strangely, the Bill would be passed to the Senate without the pensioner-submitted amendments. Pensioners needless to say have petitioned Parliament of Zimbabwe to reconsider this Pension and Provident Funds Bill, with objective of incorporating pensioner submitted provisions. It has in this petition requested Parliament for a) the IPEC Board be revised to equitably incorporate pensioners as stakeholders in order that their interests are served and b) the IPEC Amendment Bill be revised with these interests as a key consideration.
The IPEC drafted Bills (IPEC Amendment Bill, Insurance Bill and the Pension and Provident Funds Bill) invariably have to be publicly contested by pensioners (as the key stakeholders), because IPEC strangely and consistently excludes the stakeholders in drafting of the Bills. In so excluding the stakeholders, IPEC has over the past ten years insisted on providing for wrong governance of pension and insurance funds, and hence for permissive regulation and supervision of pension and insurance service provision in Zimbabwe, and on prescribing wrong benefits calculations due from pension and insurance arrangements. The insistence on apportioning absolute powers, without proportionate responsibility, and the prominence or prevalence of these provisions in the Bills, coupled with the persistent strategy to exclude stakeholders, is suggestive of a regulator (IPEC), which is not transparent nor fair, and with a hidden agenda. In particular the insistence in the IPEC Bill on the provision of arbitrary and implicit objectives of the Commission, for example (Section 3), the arbitrary powers to accredit actuaries, auditors, asset managers, credit rating agencies and other service providers; (Section 4 on Functions and Powers of the Commission); the repealing of subsection (3) and substitution by the following “(3) The persons appointed under subsection (2)(b) shall be chosen for their qualification, knowledge and experience in insurance and pension matters actuarial, legal, finance, human resources management, information technology, or related fields of expertise.”
The bestowment of such absolute power to the Commission and this Commission’s function to appoint and/or accredit actuaries, specifically, without proportionate Commission responsibility is much too common in the three Bills to be a mere erroneous coincidence. Clause 49 of the Pension and Provident Fund Bill for instance specifically requires an actuary appointed by the Commission, effectively to use pension benefit calculation methods used in 2009 that led to a pensioner national outcry, and subsequently to an investigation 2012, and to the Justice Smith Commission of Inquiry. Clearly it took laymen such as pensioners to see that there was something wrong with the method. The Justice Smith Inquiry report condemned this pension benefit calculation method and recommended compensation.
The insistence by IPEC to provide for this wrong pension benefit calculation method provides a clue to the answer why IPEC consistently excludes pensioners as a key stakeholders:- either IPEC is, in self-interest, set on pushing the Bills past stakeholders into an unjust law that will prejudice pensioners, and/or the errant actuaries involved in pension benefit calculations in 2009 have been tasked by IPEC behind the scenes to draft the Bills. The involvement of actuaries responsible for 2009 benefit calculations in drafting of the Bills is a most plausible answer for the following reasons; firstly IPEC has not got the skills, and secondly because the actuaries would only be too keen to cover their tracks and avoid consequences, in the process continuing to earn money for undeserving job. There are a precious tiny few, countable actuaries who were practising as at 2009. Until 2009, these actuaries had taken full advantage of the common man’s lack of understanding of actuarial matters, and misled the pension and insurance industry into the chaos that it is now. It is apparent that they are using corruption to maintain the chaotic status quo.
With regards the Policyholder and Pensions and Provident Fund Members Protection Fund, it is grossly ill-defined with regards to its membership, how it should be funded, how it will benefit members and how it will be managed. Typically, such protection pension funds pay compensation to members of eligible defined benefit pension schemes, when there is a qualifying insolvency event in relation to the employer and where there are insufficient assets in the pension scheme to cover Pension Protection Fund levels of compensation. A scheme may be eligible if its sponsoring employer has experienced an insolvency event and the defined benefit scheme is underfunded to a specified level. When the sponsoring employer of an eligible pension scheme becomes insolvent, the protection fund seeks to find the solution that’s best for its members and the protection fund.
Providing for the protection fund under the IPEC Amendment Bill is clearly inappropriate, the Pension and Provident Funds Bill being the correct enabling Bill. Secondly the provisions introducing this protection Fund are all encompassing involving life assurance funds, with different qualifying insolvency events, and clearly not providing for these events.

14/02/2022

Ipec Amendment Bill inaccurately drafted: Veritas

NewsDayZimbabwe

https://www.newsday.co.zw/2022/02/ipec-amendment-bill-inaccurately-drafted-veritas/

Zimbabwe Pensions and Insurance Rights Trust (ZimPIRT) comments that it is not just this Bill that is flawed and evidently structured to allow insurance companies to steal pension & insurance funds, in the process hijacking pensions and insurance service provision for ever. The Pensions & Provident Funds Bill, the Insurance Bill are all fundamentally flawed. The Pensions & Provident Funds Bill was in fact somehow passed in the National Assembly to the Senate. This latter Bill ignored Portfolio Committee agreed amendments which pensioners had submitted after a National public consultation. Pensioners through ZimPIRT have since petitioned Parliament of Zimbabwe to correct the flaws cited by Veritas and even more. It has irrefutably been established that IPEC is keenly interested in pushing through these flawed & skewed Bills in self-interest of senior IPEC officers, at the exclusion of providing for pensioner & policyholder interests. It is public information that IPEC Commissioner Grace Muradzikwa’s and IPEC Board Chairman Albert Nduna’s interests are in suppressing pensioner compensation, justifying the wrong methods they used to calculate pension benefits, cover up pension fund investment scandals, cover up exorbitant charges they levied on pensions funds and many more mistakes they made in managing pension and insurance funds. These two officers worked in the ZimRe Group in which Fidelity Life Assurance is a subsidiary. Many pensioners & policyholders were prejudiced by the actions of these two. For this and other reasons, these IPEC officers have no interest in fair pension and insurance legislation

In its latest Bill Watch publication critiquing the Bill, Veritas urged Parliament to address the inaccuracies in the Bill before it becomes law.

14/02/2022

A short history of plunder of pensioner and policyholder funds under First Mutual Life Assurance Company
The report that “FML faces investigation over asset separation law defiance” by NewsHawks is most welcome and in public interest. Such an investigation on First Mutual Life Assurance is long overdue. It is commendable that Insurance and Pension Commission (IPEC) has finally plucked up courage to investigate one of many problems bedevilling the pensions and insurance industry for many years.
Pension & insurance funds under First Mutual Life management have from the days of the late Don Edgerton in the 1990s, to this date been subject to scandal and crises. From the illegal purchase of luxury cars in the early 1990s using illegally obtained foreign currency, to the theft of these funds. The theft funds were carried out in the late 1990s with impunity by Edgerton’s investment manager, then Antony Light. Don Edgerton turned a blind eye to this theft. In attempt to hold First Mutual Life management to account by some members of the then mutual organised company, the court papers went missing. First Mutual would demutualise in 2003, ostensibly to improve management efficiency, but the main underlying reason being to prevent any members of the public from so suing. This is when First Mutual Holdings came to be – a vehicle used to distribute ownership to members (pensioners, pension fund members and policyholders) of the existing mutual-based company. This is being one of the main ways mutual-based organisations demutualise.
Very few pension fund members, pensioners & insurance policyholders benefited, if any, benfited from this demutualisation, the then senior management of FML instead, benefiting big time. Senior Management then included Douglas Hoto, Norman Sachikonye and others, with Patterson Timba heading the company that underwrote the issue of in the new First Mutual Holdings. A fight among the managers and the underwriters ensued over who would get the most loot from pension and insurance funds under the long-standing First Mutual Life Assurance management. Some of these managers would be casualties starting with Norman Sachikonye, then Douglas Hoto. Patterson Timba would emerge victorious in taking control of the loot from these pensioner and policyholder funds. It is apparent that he would seek protection from the politics, proceeding to rebrand First Mutual Holding as Afre. The looting however became so scandalous, it would become difficult to hide. He was forced to step down, just when Douglas Hoto was winding up the plundering of Altfin Insurance company, and when he had successfully campaigned himself into the IPECZ Board, in typical style and character. Faced with a situation of being jobless, it’s not difficult to conclude that Douglas Hoto, again in typical style, cajoled the then IPEC Board into investigating Timba’s scandal itself as regulator, with Hoto as party to investigators, as IPEC Board member. The investigation of the widely publicised Timba scandal, soon became secretive. The findings and conclusions of this investigation were essentially that Douglas Hoto should return to head First Mutual Holdings, whose name had been changed to Afre by Timba. The report would never be disclosed to the public. Thus he took charge of First Mutual Holdings, needless to mention how null and void this appointment is – even to this day. Predictably Hoto immediately changed name back to First Mutual Holdings, in one of those steps to settle scores.
Over the years, Hoto had concurrently acted in several capacities as Actuary, manager and regulator, and in conflict. In the process he misled pension and insurance service provision in Zimbabwe, into using wrong pension benefits calculation methods. There would a National outcry which led to the disbanding of the IPEC Board he’d been party to, to an investigation in 2012 whose findings were never disclosed, and finally to the Justice Smith Commission of Inquiry. Mean time it’s observed that Douglas Hoto has brought back Reuben Java, a close ally and one time Managing Director of First Mutual Life Assurance. Reuben Java stepped down during Timba’s reign, a suave character, with a tactic of wheedling and playing ball, has been wheedling & wangling his way in senior positions with insurance institutions, as pension and insurance service provision in Zimbabwe falter. From First Mutual, he went back to Old Mutual where he had started, then to Fidelity Life and he’s now back at First Mutual. Needless to say that Douglas Hoto needs a pliant character like Reuben who will not hinder the plundering of pensioner & policyholder funds.
This IPEC investigation must be resolute and should very clearly suspend interest parties to prevent obstruction of justice