Lagos State says the extension of High Court judges’ retirement age to 70 years has created a career bottleneck in the lower judiciary, prompting a proposed review of the retirement rules for Magistrates and Law Officers.

The Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, SAN, gave the explanation as controversy continues to trail a bill before the Lagos State House of Assembly seeking changes to the retirement provisions for the two categories of legal officers.

According to a report by TVCNEWS, Pedro said the proposal was not primarily designed to keep individual officers in service longer, but to respond to structural changes created by the 2023 constitutional amendment that increased the retirement age of High Court judges from 65 to 70.

He explained that the longer tenure of High Court judges had resulted in fewer vacancies on the Bench, consequently limiting opportunities for experienced Chief Magistrates and senior Law Officers who would ordinarily progress to the High Court.

Pedro said the proposed amendment was therefore intended to prevent valuable personnel in the Magistracy and Ministry of Justice from leaving prematurely while their experience could still contribute to the administration of justice.

Under the proposal, a Magistrate or Law Officer may retire at 60, but must leave office upon attaining 65 years or completing 40 years in service, whichever comes first.

The Attorney General said the situation was different before the constitutional amendment, when High Court judges retired at 65, creating more regular vacancies and allowing qualified Chief Magistrates and senior Law Officers to advance through the judicial system.

He said the proposed reform would help preserve institutional knowledge and continuity while ensuring that Lagos benefits from its investment in training and developing judicial and legal personnel.

Pedro also stressed that the measure was consistent with the state’s policy of harmonising the conditions of service of Law Officers with those of Magistrates, a practice dating back to a 1997 government circular.

He, however, clarified that the bill was not an Executive Bill and was not sponsored by his office, describing it instead as a Private Member’s Bill which had been considered to have sufficient justification in the interest of strengthening the justice sector. He urged the public to judge the proposal on its merits rather than sentiment.