Expanded retirement benefits for judges proposed by JSC face impediment due to financial concerns outlined in decision by SRC
The Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill, 2025, which aims to expand pensions and other retirement benefits for superior court judges, is currently facing strong opposition from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC). The SRC, the sole constitutional body empowered to set and regularly review remuneration and benefits for State Officers, has reaffirmed its exclusive mandate and rejected the Bill.
According to the SRC, they have neither initiated nor approved the review upon which the Bill is based. The Commission argues that the Bill violates constitutional provisions by attempting to bypass SRC’s authority and would impose a significant fiscal burden of about KSh 15 billion.
The SRC's opposition is based on several key points. Firstly, the Bill attempts to override the SRC Act, giving the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) unchecked powers over judges’ benefits, which the SRC views as a constitutional breach. Secondly, the Bill seeks to provide for pensions and other retirement benefits to judges of the superior courts, but the SRC can only review these benefits in accordance with its mandate under Article 230 (4) (a) of the Constitution and Section la of the SRC Act.
The SRC has also expressed concerns about the fiscal impact of the Bill. If enacted, the Bill could stress Kenya's already constrained fiscal space and could set a precedent for other State officers to demand similar costly retirement packages, leading to a ripple effect on public expenditure.
In response to the Bill, the SRC has made several recommendations. They suggest that Part II of the Bill be amended to establish a defined contribution scheme, with employees contributing at least 10%, with an option for additional voluntary contributions. The SRC also calls for the deletion of Clause 27, which duplicates the Group Life Insurance benefit already provided for under the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA) Act and scheme rules.
Moreover, the SRC recommends that Clause 55(a) on post-retirement medical cover should be deleted, pending SRC’s policy on such schemes. They also suggest that Clause 37, on trustees' remuneration, should be aligned with the Retirement Benefits (Good Governance Practices) Guidelines issued by the RBA.
The SRC's concerns extend to certain clauses in the Bill that they believe create inequity. For example, Clause 66, which seeks to grant retired judges and their spouses medical cover similar to serving judges, is criticised as such a provision would create a disparity in healthcare benefits between serving and retired judges.
The SRC's opposition to the Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill, 2025, is not only based on fiscal considerations but also on constitutional grounds. Advancing the Bill without complying with Article 230(4)(a) constitutes a constitutional breach and undermines institutional balance and oversight mechanisms.
In conclusion, the Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill, 2025, is currently stalled or opposed due to the SRC’s constitutional mandate to exclusively set remuneration for State Officers, and the SRC is calling for the Bill to be amended to respect constitutional boundaries and protect fiscal sustainability.
- The Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill, 2025, proposes significant changes to the retirement benefits of superior court judges, but the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has expressed opposition to the Bill due to concerns about constitutional breaches and fiscal implications.
- The SRC argues that the Bill violates the Constitution by attempting to bypass its authority and seeks to provide for pensions and other benefits without considering its mandate under Article 230 (4) (a) of the Constitution and Section la of the SRC Act.
- In response to the Bill, the SRC has made several recommendations, including the amendment of Part II to establish a defined contribution scheme for judges, the deletion of certain clauses that create inequity, and aligning Clause 37 on trustees' remuneration with the Retirement Benefits (Good Governance Practices) Guidelines issued by the Retirement Benefits Authority.
