By A Correspondent

Questions are mounting over the implications for judicial efficiency and competence following the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision to increase the retirement age for judicial officers from 65 to 70 years. The change, enacted through Statutory Instrument 42 of 2025—Judicial Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (No. 3)—was published last Friday and will come into effect on May 1.

Implemented with the approval of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the new provision aligns with Section 17 of the Judicial Service Act. It introduces two retirement pathways: officers appointed before May 1 can choose to retire at 65 or extend to 70 on full pension, while those appointed from that date onward will have 70 as their set pensionable age.

“Subject to section 17 of the Act, those reaching 65 may continue working up to 70, but anything beyond 65 will be regarded as early retirement unless otherwise approved,” the statutory instrument states.

The regulations mandate that each year on June 1, the Paymaster must furnish the JSC with a list of members approaching retirement age within the upcoming year. It further empowers the Commission to approve annual extensions for officers aged 65, provided they do not serve beyond 70.

Critics argue that extending the tenure of aging judicial officers may compromise the overall dynamism and performance of the judiciary. “There’s a fine line between retaining experience and risking stagnation,” said a legal analyst who preferred to remain anonymous. “We must ask whether this change is about sustaining justice or simply delaying succession.”

Under the amended regulations, early retirement is permitted from age 60, provided a three-month notice is submitted and approved by the JSC. The Commission also retains the right to mandate early retirement based on medical incapacity or inefficiency unrelated to physical or mental infirmity.

A senior official within the judiciary, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed mixed feelings: “While institutional memory is critical, we can’t ignore the growing concerns over delayed judgments and declining productivity among some senior judges.”