The government has no intention of raising the retirement age of judges or the number of years of experience needed to be appointed to the Bench, a Justice Ministry spokesman said yesterday.
“The retirement age for members of the judiciary was revised from 60 to 65 in 2007,” the spokesman said, dismissing repeated calls by the judiciary itself to raise the limit.
The most recent call was made earlier this week when Mr Justice Carmel Agius announced his retirement the day before his 65th birthday and after 33 years of service.
He said judges should not be forced to retire when they were “in their prime” and should be allowed to serve until they started experiencing health problems.
Mr Justice Agius spent the last nine years at The Hague, serving on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Although retiring from the Maltese judiciary, he will continue to serve for a few more years on the tribunal.
At the opening of the forensic year last October, Chief Justice Vincent de Gaetano joined the chorus of calls for the retirement age of the judiciary to be increased to 68.
He had made his plea some time before the retirement of Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono and Mr Justice Joseph David Camilleri, who, he said, could still give a valid contribution.
Members of Parliament Franco Debono and Josè Herrera, both criminal lawyers, insisted yesterday that the optimum retirement age for members of the judiciary was 70. Abroad, they argued, the average retirement age for judges was 70 and in the UK it was as high as 75.
Dr Debono, a Nationalist MP, said judges were still “giving their very best” when they reached retirement age, making their retirement a waste of human capital.
He suggested a change in the number of years of service required for someone to be appointed to the Bench, both as a magistrate and also as a judge. According to the Constitution, a candidate needs nine years of experience as a practising lawyer to be appointed a magistrate and 12 years to become a judge. However, the Justice Ministry spokesman said this would not change as it was deemed to be sufficient.
“The minimum experience of court practice for the appointment of members of the judiciary as defined in Chapter VIII of the Constitution of Malta is deemed to be adequate,” he insisted.
Dr Herrera, a Labour MP, agreed with Dr Debono on raising the retirement age to 70. He noted this was his personal opinion because the Labour parliamentary group had not yet discussed the matter.
He said members of the judiciary were still too young to retire at 65. Prior to reaching this age, most of them started looking at other posts they could take up, especially to make up for the sudden drop in income when they started to receive the pension, capped at €800 a month.
This, Dr Herrera believes, could impinge on their independence.
With regard to the minimum experience requirement, Dr Herrera believes this was reasonable and did not need to be changed.