Lagos Magistrates Bill: AG, Lawyers Disagree On Justice Sector Reforms

The proposed amendment to the Lagos State Magistrates Law, which seeks to extend the retirement age of magistrates and law officers, has sparked fresh controversy over career progression, institutional stability, and the justice sector’s independence.

While the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN), has defended the proposal as a necessary reform to address an unintended consequence of the constitutional extension of High Court judges’ retirement age, lawyers and other stakeholders opposing the bill have questioned its timing, scope, and potential impact on younger officers.

Pedro, in a statement issued on Monday, clarified that the bill was not an Executive Bill sponsored by his office but a Private Member’s Bill currently before the Lagos State House of Assembly.

The AG maintained that the policy has been in place since 1997, following a government circular dated March 20, 1997.

Pedro explained that the proposed amendment aims to address the effects of the 2023 constitutional alteration, which raised the retirement age of High Court judges from 65 to 70 years.

He also noted that before the constitutional change, regular retirements of High Court judges created vacancies that allowed experienced chief magistrates and senior law officers to advance to the High Court Bench.

Pedro further argued that extending judges’ retirement age has decreased the number of vacancies available for such career progression, leaving experienced chief magistrates and senior law officers facing retirement at 60 despite possessing the necessary qualifications and experience.

He described the proposed amendment as a structural adjustment to the changed judicial career pathway rather than an attempt to grant special privileges to law officers.

The Attorney-General said the provision would give officers discretion while ensuring the state retained experienced personnel for a reasonable period.

He argued that the reform would preserve institutional knowledge, enhance succession planning, encourage mentorship, and enable the government to derive greater value from its investment in training judicial and legal officers.

Pedro also noted that the arrangement was not unique to Lagos, citing similar legislative measures in Abia, Kogi, Benue, Imo, and Kwara states.

However, critics have argued that the issue should not be viewed solely as a matter of harmonising conditions of service.

Lagos Advocacy Group, in a statement signed by its Convener and Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Epe Branch, Yakubu Eleto, said extending the retirement age for law officers and magistrates could further limit opportunities for younger lawyers and judicial officers seeking promotion.

The group also contend that the proposal could institutionalise stagnation if it allows senior officers to remain in service longer without a corresponding increase in available positions or a clear succession framework.

They questioned whether the retirement provisions for law officers should be embedded within the Magistrates Law, arguing that magistrates and state counsel serve different functions and operate under separate institutional structures.

A Lagos-based senior lawyer, Oladele Areola, described the proposed amendment as a potentially flawed response to the decreasing number of vacancies on the High Court Bench.

Areola argued that the explanation that the proposal was driven by the constitutional extension of High Court judges’ retirement age from 65 to 70 years does not, on its own, justify prolonging the tenure of officers in different branches of the justice system.

According to the senior lawyer, the government’s position recognises a real institutional challenge but suggests a solution that could lead to a more serious career bottleneck.

“The fact that there are now fewer vacancies on the High Court Bench does not mean the answer is to keep magistrates and law officers in their current roles for another five years. That may simply delay promotions and limit opportunities for younger officers,” the lawyer stated.

He argued that an appropriate response should include a comprehensive review of judicial manpower, faster appointment of qualified judges where vacancies exist, expansion of court infrastructure, and a transparent career-progression framework.

He questioned the rationale behind incorporating law officers into the Magistrates Law, noting that magistrates exercise judicial authority while law officers handle prosecutorial, advisory, legislative drafting, and other legal functions for the government.

Another lawyer, Michael Nkwo, cautioned that raising the retirement age without creating new positions could cause stagnation in the justice sector, slow promotions, and discourage younger lawyers aiming for judicial appointments or senior roles within the Ministry of Justice.

While acknowledging the value of institutional experience, Nkwo maintained that retention policies should be based on clear need, performance, and transparent criteria rather than a blanket extension.

“The justice system needs both experience and renewal. If senior officers stay indefinitely, younger lawyers may have to wait years for opportunities that should normally emerge through succession,” he stated.

He called on the Lagos State House of Assembly to engage in wider consultation with the judiciary, the NBA, serving magistrates, law officers, retired judicial officers, and other stakeholders.

He urged lawmakers to demand empirical data on vacancies lost since the constitutional amendment, the projected impact of the proposal on promotions, and whether the bill would create additional positions or simply prolong current occupancy.