NAIROBI, Kenya – Efforts to enact the Judges Retirement Benefits Bill 2025 have hit a roadblock in Parliament, with a turf war emerging between the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) over jurisdiction and the long-term cost to the public purse.
The proposed law, which seeks to establish a dedicated pension framework for retired judges of the superior courts, is currently before the National Assembly’s Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee (CIOC).
While the JSC is urging MPs to fast-track its passage, the SRC has raised red flags, warning that key provisions undermine its constitutional mandate and threaten fiscal sustainability.
In a submission to the CIOC, JSC Vice Chairperson Isaac Rutto acknowledged delays in passing the Bill, saying the stalemate is hurting retired judges.
He said the delay is “denying retired judges fair compensation in line with rising living costs.”
According to the committee’s report, the Bill proposes an annual five per cent pension adjustment for retired judges and introduces a structured retirement benefits scheme tailored to the unique demands of judicial service.
Who qualifies under the Bill
The Bill applies to judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and courts with equivalent status.
The accompanying memorandum shows the proposal has been in the works since the late 1990s, reflecting longstanding concerns over judges’ post-retirement welfare.
Beyond pensions, the Bill introduces enhanced retirement perks, including medical and transport benefits, effectively granting retired judges preferential treatment compared to other public servants, who do not receive inflation-linked pension increases.
SRC raises fiscal and equity concerns
The SRC has opposed the Bill, arguing that it was not developed in consultation with the commission, as required by the Constitution.
It warns that the proposed benefits could open the door for similar demands from other state officers.
In its memorandum, the SRC cautions that extending enhanced benefits to judges could trigger a “legitimate clamour” across the public sector.
The commission warns this may “exacerbate an already constrained fiscal space and undermine efforts towards sustainable public compensation management.”
A major point of contention is the Bill’s definition of “pensionable emoluments”, which includes both a judge’s basic salary and house allowance. SRC argues this departs from established practice.
It has recommended amending the clause to define pensionable emoluments strictly as the basic salary set by SRC, saying this would ensure equity and consistency with how other state officers are treated.
JSC defends special framework for judges
The JSC has dismissed concerns of overreach, insisting that the nature of judicial service justifies a standalone retirement scheme.
In its submission, the commission acknowledged the jurisdictional concerns raised by SRC but maintained that the judiciary’s role and restrictions on judges’ post-service engagement warrant special consideration.
Under the proposed framework, judges would contribute 7.5 per cent of their salaries, with the government topping up 15 per cent.
Contributions would be charged directly to the Consolidated Fund, while pensions would be paid from a proposed Judges’ Retirement Benefits Fund once the law is enacted.
What next
Judges of the superior courts are classified as state officers under Article 260 of the Constitution, alongside the president, deputy president, cabinet secretaries, MPs, and holders of independent offices.
As MPs weigh the competing positions of JSC and SRC, the fate of the Bill remains uncertain, setting the stage for a wider debate on judicial independence, equity in public compensation, and Kenya’s strained fiscal space.
