…..over six million cedis—paid in one lump sum upon retirement. And that’s just the beginning. Their annual pension starts at over ₵746,000
In a nation burdened by flooding, debt restructuring, unpaid contractors, IMF-imposed conditions, and chronic underinvestment in health and education, one must ask: Can we continue to afford the lavish benefits granted to elite officeholders—especially those at the highest ranks of our judiciary?
The Cost of a Justice’s Retirement
Consider the case of a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Under the current system, a justice who retires after 25 years of service enjoys a retirement package that is nothing short of extraordinary.
Breaking Down the Numbers
A Justice of the Court of Appeal currently earns a monthly salary of ₵62,202.53. Upon retirement, they continue to receive this amount for life, with automatic increases whenever the salary of sitting justices rises. This pension is indexed not to inflation but to salary growth—an unusually generous arrangement.
But that’s not all. The justice also receives a gratuity (ex gratia) worth four months’ salary for every year served. For a judge retiring after 25 years, the payout is staggering:
4 x 25 x ₵62,202.53 = ₵6,220,253
Yes, over six million cedis—paid in one lump sum upon retirement. And that’s just the beginning. Their annual pension starts at over ₵746,000, increasing with salary adjustments.
For the individual judge, this is a spectacular financial reward.
But for the public purse? The cost is deeply alarming.
The Public Burden
If even ten justices retire under these terms in a single year, the government will pay over ₵62 million in gratuities and nearly ₵8 million annually in pension payments—amounts that will only escalate over time.
And that’s before factoring in healthcare, security, drivers, housing, and other post-retirement benefits attached to the office.
A Matter of Priorities
In theory, generous judicial compensation safeguards independence—ensuring that judges remain above corruption and focused solely on justice.
But at what point does this generosity become unjust, unsustainable, and detached from economic reality?
National service personnel earn less than ₵1,000 per month.
Doctors and health professionals remain underpaid and underresourced.
Public workers face salary delays and arrears.
Ordinary citizens were forced to accept painful “haircuts” on pensions and government bonds.
Hospitals and schools routinely lack basic supplies.
Accra floods every time it rains.
In this context, is it defensible to pay millions of cedis to a single individual upon retirement while essential public services crumble?
A Broken System
If policy must be fair, effective, and sustainable, then this judicial retirement scheme fails on all three counts.
It is fair only for the privileged few.
It is effective only in enriching a select class.
It is sustainable only if society consents to perpetual austerity.
Reforming judicial pay must not mean compromising judicial independence. But privilege must not translate into untouchable exceptionalism.
If we are all in this republic together, then its burdens and benefits must be shared more equitably.
The so-called “Professor this, Professor that” Emoluments Committee appears more concerned with abstract theorizing than real fiscal responsibility—designing golden parachutes in an economy begging for lifeboats.
The Real Question
Is it justice to grant justices golden parachutes while the rest of society tightens their belts?
Da Yie!
Kwaku Azar
