Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN, the immediate past attorney-general of the federation (AGF), advised former President Muhammadu Buhari to decline assent to the bill on uniform retirement age for judicial officers, TheCable report.

In a memo dated May 23 and addressed to the office of the chief of staff to the president, Malami said the bill appears to be “far-reaching, unduly wide, ambiguous”, adding that it made no “justification” for the extension of retirement age and benefits for judges.

Malami averred that the bill would lead to stagnation in the career growth of judges, adding that “those currently on the bench would have to stay longer, preventing others from being elevated in higher courts”.

The former AGF said the bill, if approved, may lead to further agitation for the extension of the retirement age of justices of the supreme court and court of appeal.

“Accordingly, the federal government enacted the Federal Judicial Officers (Administration of Pension) Act 2007, which transferred the responsibility and administration of pension of the federal judicial officers from the department of establishments in the office of the head of service of the federation to the National Judicial Council,” Malami wrote in the memo.

“Similarly, State Governments are responsible for the pension of judicial officers in the state courts of record.

“These provisions are now being amended by the fifth alteration which now restricts the power of the federal government to make law with respect to Judicial Officers who retire after the age of 65.

“Regardless of extant economic realities of the federal government, by virtue of the fifth alteration, all judges who retire after attaining 65 years of age would be entitled to payment of their salaries for life, including all allowances in addition to any other benefit to which they may be entitled.

“By virtue of the constitution, the only persons entitled to payment of their last salaries for life as pension are the President, Vice-President and Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. In the case of the latter, it’s only applicable if the justices retire at or after the age of 65 and have spent not less than 15 years.”

Malami added that the proposed alteration of the constitution also eliminated the “responsibility of states to pay these altered retirement benefits”.

In this article