…As Assembly Holds stakeholders’ Meeting, Questions Arise Per Proposed Five-Year Extension For Law Officers
By Akinwale Adeyemi
There is growing concern in sections of the Lagos State Public Service over a proposed amendment to the Magistrates’ Court Law, 2015, now before the Lagos State House of Assembly.
The Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, Public Petition and LASIEC is scheduled to hold a stakeholders’ meeting on the Magistrates’ Court (Amendment) Bill, 2026, on Monday, September 7, 2026.
The Bill may have been introduced to address legitimate issues concerning the Magistracy. But one provision is raising a much bigger question:
Why is one category of public officers being singled out for a five-year extension of service?
Under the proposal, Law Officers would reportedly have their retirement age increased from 60 to 65 years, while their maximum years of service would move from 35 to 40 years.
There is nothing inherently wrong with retaining experienced professionals in government.
The problem is selectivity.
Lagos State is not powered by lawyers alone.
Doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, accountants, architects, planners, surveyors, administrators and other professionals have also devoted decades of their lives to the State.
If experience is the justification for a five-year extension, why should that principle apply only to Law Officers?
What makes their experience uniquely deserving of protection?
That question should concern the entire Lagos Public Service.
WHY NOW?
There is another issue that should not be overlooked: institutional succession.
Public officers build their careers within a framework of known rules. Senior officers retire, vacancies arise and those coming behind progress.
Change the retirement rules and that progression changes too.
Promotions can be delayed. Succession can be postponed. Career expectations can be disrupted.
And when a proposed five-year extension affects officers who are already approaching retirement, it inevitably raises the question whether government is making a general policy or simply changing the rules at a particularly convenient time.
That is a perception any responsible government should avoid.
BUT WHY THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT LAW?
This may be the most difficult question of all.
The Magistrates’ Court Law is fundamentally concerned with the Magistracy and the administration and operation of Magistrates’ Courts.
Magistrates are judicial officers.
Law Officers are officers of the Executive and members of the Lagos State Public Service.
If the Government wants to review the conditions of service of Law Officers, why not do so openly through the appropriate Public Service and legislative framework?
Why attach the proposal to a law dealing principally with the Magistracy?
The stakeholders’ meeting provides the Assembly with an opportunity to ask precisely that question.
LET US ALSO TALK ABOUT THE MAGISTRATES
There is an irony in all of this.
If the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the administration of justice, the welfare and working conditions of Magistrates should be at its heart.
Some Magistrates have reportedly continued to face basic logistical challenges, including the absence of official vehicles long after appointment.
A judicial officer should not have to depend on a motorcycle, tricycle or commercial taxi to get to court while being expected to discharge the serious responsibilities of judicial office.
If we want a stronger Magistracy, let us strengthen the Magistracy.
Give newly appointed Magistrates official vehicles within a defined period.
Improve court infrastructure.
Provide adequate technology and research facilities.
Address welfare and security.
And if the monetary jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts is to increase from ₦10 million to ₦25 million, provide the courts with the resources to handle that increased responsibility.
THE ASSEMBLY SHOULD ASK FOUR SIMPLE QUESTIONS
As stakeholders gather on Monday, the House should ask:
Why Law Officers?
Why now?
Why through the Magistrates’ Court Law?
And why should other professionals in the Public Service not receive the same consideration?
These are not questions against Law Officers.
They are questions about fairness, policy consistency and legislative integrity.
If there is a compelling reason to extend the service of Law Officers, let Government make the case openly.
If the policy is really about retaining valuable experience, let Lagos develop a comprehensive policy for the Public Service.
But legislation should not create the impression of preferential treatment for a restricted cadre of public officers.
THIS IS BIGGER THAN LAWYERS
This should not be allowed to become a lawyers’ argument.
It is a Lagos Civil Service issue.
Every public servant should be entitled to ask why one professional group should receive an additional five years when others, whose skills are equally indispensable to the State, remain subject to the existing rules.
The Assembly now has the opportunity to get this right.
The Executive has the opportunity to explain the policy.
And the Public Service has the right to expect fairness.
Government should make rules for institutions — not for individuals.
If 65 years is good policy, explain why.
If 40 years of service is justified, explain why.
But if the justification is good enough for Law Officers, Lagosians are entitled to ask:
WHY NOT FOR OTHERS?
Lagos must not legislate by convenience.
Lagos should legislate by principle.
