NPP lawyers back judicial retirement age reforms

Thursday, 30 July 2026 05:32 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Lawyers for Public Mandate (LPM), an organisation affiliated with the National People’s Power (NPP), yesterday defended the Government’s proposed judicial reforms, arguing that the measures are intended to strengthen the justice system by addressing judicial vacancies and reducing court delays.

Speaking at a media briefing, attorneys representing the organisation rejected criticism of the proposed constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of judges, alleging that politicians facing unresolved corruption investigations were attempting to portray the reforms as a threat to judicial independence.

The lawyers said the Cabinet-approved proposal would increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges to 67 from 65 and Court of Appeal judges to 65 from 63.

Under the proposal, the Chief Justice would serve until the age of 67 or for six years from the date of appointment, whichever occurs first.

The retirement age of High Court judges would also increase to 63 from 61, while Magistrates and District Judges would retire at 62 instead of 60.

LPM said the proposed retirement ages are consistent with practices in several other jurisdictions, noting that judges retire at 70 in Australia and Denmark, at 75 in Canada and Brazil, while the US does not prescribe a mandatory retirement age for federal judges.

The organisation also cited American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., arguing that judicial experience is an important asset that contributes to the strength of the legal system.

According to LPM, the reforms form part of the Government’s broader judicial and anti-corruption agenda and are intended to help alleviate longstanding shortages of judges and reduce the backlog of court cases.

The lawyers noted that although 110 High Court positions have been approved, only 93 are currently filled, adding that additional courts and judicial officers are required to improve the administration of justice.

LPM also rejected claims that the amendment was designed to benefit any individual judge, reiterating its allegation that politicians facing corruption investigations were attempting to undermine the proposal by presenting it as a threat to judicial independence.