The government dropped a proposal to raise the retirement age for members of the judiciary to 68 to retain uniformity, according to a Justice Ministry spokesman.

The Judges and Magistrates Association has declined to comment on the government’s eleventh hour decision to withdraw an amendment raising the retirement age of members of the judiciary to 68.

The retirement age was set to be raised by three years as part of a wide-ranging reform passed through Parliament last month.

There are 13 members of the judiciary who are expected to retire over the next five years.

Both the government and the Opposition had agreed on raising the retirement age, however, the relevant amendment to the law was withdrawn by the government at committee stage.

Contacted by this paper, a spokeswoman for the Justice Ministry put the move down to a condition insisted upon by the judiciary.

“The position of the judiciary’s association on the matter was one in favour of the raising of the age of retirement to 68 years on condition, however, that any judge or magistrate would retain the right to enjoy both the full social security pension upon reaching the age of 65 as well as the salary as judge or magistrate.

“This, naturally, would have led to some members of the judiciary opting to resign at 65 and others opting to stay on till 68. The government decided to go for uniformity and keep the retirement age at 65 while affording an improved pension to the judiciary. An improved pension will serve to keep attracting the best legal minds to join the Bench.

Talking Point: The amendment that never was

“It is pertinent to add that the relevant legal amendments were passed through unanimously in Parliament,” the spokeswoman said.

In a Talking Point in last Thursday’s edition of this paper, former deputy prime minister and former European commissioner Tonio Borg questioned the reason for the sudden withdrawal of the amendment.

“It does not even cross my mind that the move for withdrawal was political in nature or that the government was not happy with past appointments of certain members of the Bench and does not want to extend their term in office.

“So what was the purpose of such a change of heart? Was it a financial consideration? I do not think so. Salaries for a fixed number of judges remain the same so long as the complement is not increased,” Dr Borg wrote.

He said that “mystery engulfs this unilateral move”.

Shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi pointed out that raising the retirement age for members of the judiciary was part of a reform package proposed by the Opposition in February as part of a Private Member’s Bill.

Dr Azzopardi said the Opposition had no choice but to acquiesce to the dropping of the amendment, seeing that it was part of a wider package and the PN’s redlines were the complete detachment of politicians from appointments to the judiciary and the transparent scrutiny of each candidate to the judiciary.