Injustice to judges

RETIRED judges, we believe, have a legitimate grouse about the paucity of their pension benefits. A group of some 15 ex-judges went to see President Max Richards last week Wednesday and presented their case for an upgrading of their pensions which, in most instances, seem to us embarrassingly poor. At the bottom of the scale are some judges who retired many years ago and, according to our information, are receiving a pension of approximately $3,400 a month which must be considered scandalous. According to the time the judges left the bench, their pensions range from that figure to $11,000 which is what the latest retirees receive.

It is depressing, however, to learn that after serving the country for many years in such a vital and exalted capacity, some former judges have fallen on stringent financial circumstances, having to depend on family for lodging, hardly able to pay their medical bills and holding down small “consultancies” to augment their earnings. The sense of injustice among the retired judges is pervasive since the delegation which took their grouse to the President represented the vast majority of former officers of the High and Appellate Court. They have all served with dignity and competence on the country’s bench, in the high calling of dispensing justice in our courts, some of them for more than two decades, and, in our view, they should now be enjoying a comfortable retirement, free from monetary problems.

The nation owes them such a retirement. We expect their petition is receiving the utmost sympathy and consideration from the President who we feel sure will refer their case to the relevant Government authority who, in turn, will place it before the Salaries Review Commission from whom the deserved relief should be shortly forthcoming. It is our view, however, that such an unfortunate situation should not have arisen in the first place. We believe the pension of these judges should at least have been pegged to the rate of inflation and, in any case, should have been upgraded periodically, say every two or three years. There are other reasons why we have chosen to support the judges’ petition.

For one thing, they are not permitted by law to practice in our courts for a period of ten years after retirement, which puts them in a peculiar category, unlike doctors, engineers, economists, teachers and other professionals in the Government Service. For another, all the allowances and other benefits they enjoyed while on the Bench are terminated when they retire. Some have had to move out of Government quarters but, most significantly, they lost the health insurance coverage which is needed more than ever in their advanced years.

But above all that, we believe that judges who, by the special nature of their responsibilities, must be drawn away from the world of money-making, should be assured of financial independence not only during their term in office but also after retirement. Indeed, that assurance has to be considered one of the pillars upholding the independence of the judiciary. It can hardly be proper for judges to be worried or anxious about how they will live after their career is over. For all these reasons, we feel an injustice is being done to our retired judges and we urge the necessary action to relieve their embarrassing situation.