Supreme Court nominee, Justice Sir Dennis Adjei, says Ghana’s mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges should not be extended, citing the intense workload on the bench and its toll on the health of justices.

Speaking during his vetting by the Appointments Committee of Parliament on Monday, June 17, Justice Adjei dismissed calls for constitutional amendments to increase the retirement age for Supreme Court justices.

“In Ghana, the 70 is okay, because people go home [after retirement] and within two years, they die because of the volume of work that we do,” he stated.

Responding to a question on why Ghana should not emulate jurisdictions like the United States where federal judges serve for life, Justice Adjei clarified that the systems are fundamentally different.

He explained that in the U.S., judges can opt for a “senior judge status” from age 65, allowing them to reduce their caseloads significantly while still remaining on the bench.

“They have senior judge status… You may decide to sit either one-third or half of your volume of work. And if you become 80 or 90 [years], the number of cases you sit on is up to you,” he said.

“But just in 2009, the UK increased their retirement age to 75.”

Justice Adjei maintained that Ghana’s judicial workload is too demanding to justify an extension.

He noted that judges often endure heavy schedules that take a physical toll over the years, making timely retirement a matter of wellbeing.

Earlier during the vetting, Supreme Court nominee Justice Senyo Dzamefe made it clear that he does not support calls to review the retirement age for judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal from 70 to 75.

Justice Dzamefe said he strongly believes the current retirement age of 70 should be maintained.

“I will not agree with sending the retirement ages of Supreme Court or Appeal Court judges to 75. No,” he said. “The retirement age as at now is 70. Superior court judges retire on their salaries.”

He explained that traditionally, age and experience were important factors in judicial work, but technology has changed that reality.

“Formally, you need to be advanced in age to get the experience and the exposure so that when you give judgment, it is respected. It is a solid judgment because you’re adding personal experience to the legal knowledge you have,” he said.

“But of late, technology has made it such that what you needed 60 or 70 years to know, technology can make it available to you very early,” he explained. “So personally, my opinion is to keep it at 70. That is my opinion, not 75.”