Christopher Boadi-Mensah, CEO of National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA)
The recent proposal by the National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA) to increase Ghana’s mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65 years has ignited heated debate and rightly so. While the intention may be to sustain pension funds and align with certain global benchmarks, the reality is that this proposal, if implemented, would pose a serious threat to Ghana’s already struggling youth employment landscape and place undue pressure on an aging workforce.
1. Ghana’s Life Expectancy Realities
The average Ghanaian life expectancy currently hovers around 64 years. In effect, raising the retirement age to 65 would mean that many workers may never live to enjoy their pension benefits.
This is a stark contrast to developed nations where retirement ages are increasing in tandem with improved life expectancy and robust healthcare systems. In Ghana, where many workers are burdened with high physical and mental workloads and have limited access to quality healthcare, expecting them to work until 65 is both unrealistic and inhumane.
2. Worsening Youth Unemployment
Ghana’s youth unemployment is a ticking time bomb. Every year, thousands of graduates pour out of universities and technical institutions with limited opportunities for formal employment. Increasing the retirement age would delay the natural attrition of older workers and block job openings for younger, energetic, and technologically agile individuals. In a country where over 50% of the population is under 25, this proposal threatens the very future of the workforce.
3. Institutional Inefficiency and Productivity Concerns
Many of Ghana’s public institutions are already hampered by outdated processes and a lack of innovation. Increasing the retirement age would entrench these inefficiencies, as older employees are often less adaptive to technological changes and modern administrative practices. A steady infusion of young professionals is essential for institutional renewal and productivity enhancement something a five-year delay in retirement directly undermines.
4. Focus Should Be on Pension Reform, Not Delaying Retirement
The sustainability of the pension scheme should be addressed not by keeping people working longer, but by strengthening contribution compliance, investing pension funds prudently, and reducing administrative waste.
Mismanagement and delays in payment by employers are far greater threats to pension sustainability than the age at which people retire. The NPRA’s energy would be better spent fixing these structural issues rather than introducing a policy that creates more problems than it solves.
5. Global Trends Must Be Applied in Context
Yes, some advanced economies are increasing retirement ages but context matters. These nations have longer life expectancies, stronger safety nets, and a better standard of living. Blindly importing such policies without considering Ghana’s economic, demographic, and healthcare context is short-sighted. Policymaking must be informed by national realities, not external comparisons.
6. A More Reasonable Alternative
If there is truly a need for experienced professionals to remain active, the option of voluntary contract-based extensions after age 60 in critical areas such as medicine, academia, or the judiciary can be explored. This ensures knowledge transfer without halting the progress of younger workers or burdening the system.
Conclusion
The NPRA’s push for a universal retirement age of 65 is not only flawed but dangerous. It threatens the employment prospects of the youth, risks overburdening an aging workforce, and may deprive retirees of the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
Ghana must reject this proposal and instead focus on policies that promote generational balance, economic growth, and long-term pension sustainability. Retirement should mark a time of rest and dignity not be turned into a prolonged endurance test.
