Treat judges due to retire with respect

Transitions are not easy to manage and so it is that when senior Government officers near the end of their careers, uncertainty sets in. And in a country where a Government job guarantees not only a steady income, but also a relatively secure home and lifestyle, many public servants fret when retirement age beckons. Majority will try to hang on using all manner of tricks or loopholes in the system.

And with the coming into force of the 2010 Constitution, some cadre of State workers have had their retirement age altered. There are also attempts by constitutional bodies to reduce the retirement age of civil servants from 60 to 55.

This has been met with stiff resistance from public servant unions. There are varied arguments for and against this proposal.

One school of thought posits that some elderly public servants have too much valuable experience and knowledge to be retired at 55. They feel that experience would be wasted, denying Kenyans valuable service should the grey-haired staff be sent home so early.

But the counter-argument is that by extending the retirement age, thousands of university graduates will be denied job opportunities. The feeling is that considering the high levels of unemployment, older staff should be sent home to make room for educated youths.

Striking a balance between the two arguments is what the Jubilee government and other concerned State institutions, should strive for. The responsibility to ensure a smooth transition without affecting quality of service falls on Jubilee’s shoulders.

It is, therefore, disheartening to hear disagreements and conflicting interpretations of the Constitution regarding the retirement age for judges.

Under the new Constitution, the men and women designated as the custodians of the law should retire at 70. The old Constitution allowed them to serve until 74 years. And there lies the source of simmering conflict at the core of reforming Judiciary. But must a change of guard in public offices be adversarial all the time? Why can’t we ever manage change in an orderly and civil manner?

In a report carried elsewhere in this newspaper, we share ugly correspondence between judges and the Judicial Service Commission on retirement affecting some 38 judges whose age is approaching 70. In the letters, referred to as ‘retirement notices’, the judges have been ordered to vacate office as soon as they turn 70.

One judge, on receiving such a letter, says he feels unappreciated. After serving his country for all those years, he feels he has been treated badly. He says a junior officer who handed him the letter even asked to see his national identification card, as if to confirm his age.

As a result, a number of affected judges are contemplating taking the matter to court. They argue that they were employed under the old law, which allowed them to serve until they turn 74. Although it is everyone’s right to resort to the corridors of justice when they feel aggrieved, it is embarrassing for senior judges to take their fight – for more years at work – to court.

Why antagonise a working judge with information such as, “The Treasury is, by copy of this letter, notified for purposes of facilitating processing of retirement benefits”?

It has also emerged that the succession of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga is causing discomfort in the Judiciary. This would not only affect the quality of work, but also demoralise hardworking judges and magistrates.

The Judicial Service Commission should have foreseen potential resentment from the affected judges and called them to a meeting.

The give-and-take meeting would then have deliberated on the issue and come up with an agreeable plan. Ambushing the judges with ‘notices of retirement’ was not a wise move. Instead, it is an action of disrespect towards a group of Kenyans who have served their country faithfully.

Giving more than 40 years to one’s country is a huge sacrifice, and anyone would rightly expect to be treated respectfully.