Senior lawyers in Nigeria are now divided on whether or not the 70 years statutory retirement for Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should be increased to 75 years.
Once the appellate court judges succeed to an increase in retirement age, the various state high courts and the federal high court judges will also benefit, along with judges of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria and their colleagues who will no longer retire at 65 years.
- Nigeria, Cuba to collaborate on COVID-19 vaccine production
- Okonjo-Iweala: I was surprised Trump blocked my WTO Job
Justices of the Supreme Court will henceforth retire at 75 years if the amendment bill seeking to make this a part of the constitution is passed by the National Assembly.
According to Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN), judges should not have any retirement age, just like in the US and UK.
This is because “a judge is like wine, the older he grows, the more mature, tolerant, humane and experienced he is.”
The first black man to be the justice of the Supreme Court in the US, Justice Thurgood Marshall, retired voluntarily at the age of 89.
“From my little experience, the older ones are more experienced. If at a particular time a judge said he is tired or not well, he can go. Some are stronger than me today,” Usman said.
Section 291(1) of the Nigerian Constitution,1999 provides that “a judicial officer appointed to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal may retire when he attains the age of 65 years and he shall cease to hold office when he attains the age of 70 years.
“(2) A judicial officer appointed to any other court, other than those specified in subsection (1) of this section may retire when he attains the age of 60 years and he shall cease to hold office when he attains the age of 65 years.”
The mandatory retirement age of judges varies throughout the US. A number of states have no mandated retirement age, while others range from 70-75 years.
Prof. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan, Director General, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) said for mental alertness and commitment to upholding justice, age bar increases to 70 and 75 should not be problematic.
He, however, added that for the growth and development of the judiciary in a digital age, committed younger generation of judges and their career progression need to be injected into the judiciary for enhanced delivery of Justice.
The issue of increasing the retiring age of our judges, according to Edward Pwajok (SAN) should form part of the items for restructuring of the country.
“The judiciary as an arm of government also needs to be restructured. Merely increasing the retiring age of judges will only be cosmetic and will not address fundamental issues for instance the delay in the dispensation of justice or conflicting judgements of the same court,” he said.
“If we want to copy from the USA where the Supreme Court justices serve for life, we should also copy their structure which has only nine justices serving a population of over 340 million people and very few appeals get to the Supreme Court. It takes only a short time to dispose of cases because they are few.
“Former President Trump and his cronies filed about 62 cases after the November 20th election, but within six weeks all the cases had been disposed of, some of them within a few days and that includes some appeals that went up to the Supreme Court.
“So, my view is that we should not just pick one aspect but either go the whole hog and restructure or let the status quo remain,” Pwajok said.
Segun Odubela (SAN) on his part said: “I do not see anything wrong with that. We have seen some appellate court justices who retired at 70 but were still energetic, sound and can still go on for another 5 to 10 years.
“We have seen some who even at 60 already have health challenges because of the nature and the type and conditions under which our judges work.
“So, I will support it, after all, individuals (justices) can voluntarily retire at any time before reaching the statutory retirement age. But above all, I feel the government needs to provide necessary tools for our courts and make their working environments more friendly to maximize their productivity.”
But Jibrin Samuel Okutepa (SAN) said: “I do not support increasing the age of retirement beyond 70 years for justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. But I support the increment of retirement of judges of High Courts, Federal High Court, National Industrial Court of Nigeria and other superior courts of records to 70 years instead of the 65 years stipulated in the constitution.
“Instead of advocating for elongation of retirement age of justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, I rather advocate that we amend the constitution to make recruitment into those courts merit-based and from the brightest of the brightest amongst the cream of legal practitioners and judicial officers of impeccable character and conduct.”
Similarly, Rotimi Oguneso (SAN) said: “I do not agree with it. It is not healthy. I do not think the people proposing increase in retirement age know what it is – the nature of the job and the toll it takes on the health and well being of the judges and justices. Very few judges can continue after the age of 70. There should be life after retirement.”
On his part, Garba Tetengi (SAN) also opposed increase of the retirement age of justices from 70 years to 75 years.
“I do not subscribe to increasing the retirement ages of judges and justices. What presently obtains suffices. There are backlog of potential justices and others aspiring to the bench. They should not be stagnated by increasing retirement age. What is there to prove after attaining the retirement age. They should take a bow and rest to allow others to contribute their quota to the country’s judicial development,” Tetengi said.
