The Lagos State House of Assembly is considering a five-year extension to the retirement age of magistrates, saying retaining experienced judicial officers would help prevent disruptions to ongoing cases and preserve expertise acquired through years of service.
The proposal is contained in the Lagos Magistrate Courts Amendment Bill 2026, which passed its second reading on Monday.
If enacted, the amendment would raise the retirement age of magistrates from 60 to 65 years.
The bill is being considered against the backdrop of concerns over the volume of cases handled by magistrates and the potential consequences of experienced judicial officers leaving the bench while cases remain pending.
Leading the debate, the Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, Public Petitions and LASIEC, Oladipo Ajomale, said Lagos had invested substantially in the training of its magistrates and should ensure that the expertise acquired remained within the judicial system.
Ajomale said the proposed amendment was aimed not only at improving the welfare and conditions of service of magistrates but also at strengthening the magistracy and enhancing justice delivery.
He argued that allowing magistrates with the requisite experience to remain in service until the age of 65 would help ensure continuity in judicial proceedings.
According to him, magistrates handle a significant proportion of cases involving ordinary residents, making continuity particularly important to the administration of justice.
Ajomale said the retirement of an experienced magistrate at 60 could have consequences beyond the individual judicial officer, particularly when the magistrate was handling cases that had yet to be concluded.
He said proceedings could be delayed when a magistrate retired before determining a case and, in some instances, matters could have to begin afresh.
The lawmaker said the five-year extension would help prevent the loss of accumulated judicial knowledge while ensuring greater continuity in the magistracy.
He said, “The state has made significant investments in the training and development of magistrates,” stressing that adequate welfare and improved working conditions were necessary to retain the expertise acquired by judicial officers.
Ajomale maintained that the proposed increase in the retirement age was necessary because “permitting experienced magistrates to retire at 60 could result in the forfeiture of valuable knowledge and expertise at a critical juncture when their experience is most essential.”
The proposal also received support from Bonu Solomon, who called for greater attention to research and the welfare of magistrates.
Bonu said the workload confronting magistrates warranted a closer examination of their working conditions, claiming that some judicial officers were reportedly handling more than 100 cases in a single day.
He argued that improved welfare would motivate magistrates and enable them to discharge their responsibilities more effectively.
The debate took a broader turn when the Speaker of the House, Mudashiru Obasa, questioned whether age alone should determine when a magistrate leaves the bench.
Obasa argued that the retirement framework should take into account an officer’s competence and continued ability to perform judicial duties.
“The retirement age of magistrates should not be based solely on age, but also on their competence and ability to continue performing effectively,” he said.
The Speaker noted that many people above 60 remained productive, arguing that judicial officers who retained the capacity to perform effectively should not necessarily be forced out of service solely because they had reached the existing retirement threshold.
“Many people above 60 remain active and productive,” Obasa said, adding that competent magistrates should be allowed to continue serving, while those who could no longer perform effectively should retire.
The proposed amendment raises a broader question of how Lagos can balance institutional renewal with the retention of experience in its justice system. While younger judicial officers require opportunities for advancement, lawmakers argued that the departure of experienced magistrates could have implications for a system already dealing with substantial caseloads.
Following the debate, Obasa referred the bill to the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, Public Petitions and LASIEC for further consideration.
The committee was directed to examine the proposal and report its findings to the House within one week.