Renowned US-based Ghanaian lawyer and scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has bemoaned the huge salaries and benefits paid to top public office holders in Ghana.
In a write-up shared on social media on May 20, 2025, Kwaku Azar questioned why a country with so many problems would be giving huge sums of money in benefits to “elite office holders — especially those at the pinnacle of our judiciary.”
The academic cited the remuneration of a Justice of the Court of Appeal as an example of the “gilded benefits” of elite public office holders that must be re-examined.
He said that Court of Appeal judges currently earn GH¢62,000 per month as salaries, aside from the other monthly benefits they enjoy.
“Take the case of a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Under current arrangements, a justice who retires after 25 years of service on the Superior Court of Judicature receives a retirement package that is nothing short of extraordinary.
“Let’s do the mathematics. The current monthly salary for a Justice of the Court of Appeal is GH¢62,202.53,” he wrote.
Kwaku Azar also said that in addition to the fact that Superior Court justices retire on their salaries, they are given ex gratia of over GH¢6 million.
“Upon retirement, the justice continues to receive this amount every month for life — and that amount is automatically adjusted upwards any time the salary of sitting justices is increased. In effect, the pension is indexed not to inflation, but to salary growth, which is even more generous.
“On top of this, the justice receives a gratuity (aka ex gratia) equivalent to four months’ salary for every year served. If they served for 25 years (a not uncommon scenario), the maths is staggering: 4 x 25 x ₵62,202.53 = ₵6,220,253. Yes, over six million cedis — paid as a lump sum upon retirement. This is in addition to a lifetime pension that starts at over ₵746,000 annually, with built-in upward adjustments,” he added.
He pointed out that these hefty amounts paid as benefit is drains the public purse.
Read his full post below:
In a country grappling with perennial flooding, debt restructuring, unpaid contractors, IMF conditions, and chronic underinvestment in health and education, it is worth asking whether we can continue to afford the gilded benefits of elite officeholders—especially those at the pinnacle of our judiciary.
Take the case of a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Under current arrangements, a justice who retires after 25 years of service on the Superior Court of Judicature receives a retirement package that is nothing short of extraordinary.
Let’s do the math.
The current monthly salary for a Justice of the Court of Appeal is ₵62,202.53.
Upon retirement, the justice continues to receive this amount every month for life—and that amount is automatically adjusted upward any time the salary of sitting justices is increased. In effect, the pension is indexed not to inflation, but to salary growth, which is even more generous.
On top of this, the justice receives a gratuity (aka ex gratia) equivalent to four months’ salary for every year served. If they served for 25 years (a not uncommon scenario), the math is staggering:
4 x 25 x ₵62,202.53 = ₵6,220,253
Yes, over six million cedis—paid as a lump sum upon retirement. This is in addition to a lifetime pension that starts at over ₵746,000 annually, with built-in upward adjustments.
For the individual judge, this is a spectacular reward.
But for the public purse? The cost is deeply concerning.
If even ten justices retire in a given year under these terms, the state will shell out over ₵62 million in gratuities alone, and nearly ₵8 million per year in pension payments, escalating over time.
And this does not include healthcare, security, drivers, housing, or other post-retirement benefits that may attach to the office.
In the abstract, it is easy to justify generous judicial compensation. Judges should be above corruption, financially secure, and motivated to protect the rule of law without fear or favour. Robust retirement benefits are often part of that architecture of independence.
But in practice, there is a point at which such benefits risk becoming unjust, unsustainable, and detached from the economic reality faced by the rest of the population.
The reality is:
• National service personnel earn less than ₵1,000 per month;
• Medical doctors and other health professionals are underpaid and under-resourced.
•Many public workers face arrears and delayed salary adjustments;
•Citizens were forced to accept “haircuts” on government bonds and pensions;
•Hospitals and schools routinely lack essential supplies due to budget shortfalls;
• Accra floods when it rains.
In such a context, can we honestly defend paying millions of cedis to a single individual in retirement while basic public services remain underfunded?
If the test of policy is whether it is fair, effective, and sustainable, then this current judicial retirement scheme fails on all three counts.
It is fair only to the few.
It is effective only in enriching a select class.
And it is sustainable only if the rest of society agrees to permanent austerity.
Reforming judicial pay should not mean undermining judicial independence. But judicial privilege must not become judicial exceptionalism. If we are all in this republic together, then burdens and benefits alike must be shared more equitably.
The “Professor this, Professor that” Emoluments Committee appears more committed to academic abstraction than fiscal responsibility—crafting golden parachutes in an economy begging for lifeboats.
The time has come to ask: Is it justice to give justices a golden parachute while the rest of society is asked to tighten their belts and take haircuts?
Da Yie!
BAI/VPO
You can also watch the latest news on GhanaWeb TV below:
