Prof H. Prempeh Questions Obligatory Retirement at 60, Proposes Prolonged Running Age for Academics
Introduction
The discourse surrounding mandatory retirement ages is undergoing a significant shift in Ghana, spearheaded by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, the Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC). In a recent interview following the submission of the CRC’s final report to the President, Prof. Prempeh raised critical questions regarding the constitutional provision that mandates university academics to retire at the age of 60. He argues that this fixed threshold is not only archaic but also misaligned with the realities of modern academic life and the intellectual longevity of scholars. This article delves into the details of his proposal, the rationale behind extending the retirement age for academics, and the potential implications for higher education institutions in Ghana.
Key Points
- Inconsistency with Current Practice: Many academics are already retained as consultants or contract staff post-retirement, suggesting the 60-year limit is artificial.
- Proposed Extension: The CRC recommends removing the fixed retirement age from the 1992 Constitution to allow universities to retain staff until age 70 or beyond, subject to fitness and productivity.
- Comparison with Judiciary: Prempeh notes that judges, who also hold constitutionally protected positions, retire at 65 or 70, making the 60-year cap for lecturers seem disproportionately low.
- Productivity vs. Age: The argument that “some are not even in their prime yet” challenges the assumption that 60 marks the end of professional utility.
- Employment Fallacy: Prempeh debunked the notion that forcing older academics out automatically creates job vacancies for younger graduates, explaining that retirement does not equate to a direct replacement cycle.
Background
The Current Constitutional Framework
Under the current laws governing public service in Ghana, specifically within the tertiary education sector, the standard mandatory retirement age is set at 60 years. This is derived from the 1992 Constitution and the Civil Service Act, which apply to public university lecturers. Upon reaching this age, academics are required to exit the service, regardless of their continued intellectual capacity or research output.
The Phenomenon of “Post-Retirement Contract”
A widely acknowledged reality in Ghanaian universities is the practice of “post-retirement contracts.” Academics who attain the age of 60 are frequently re-engaged by their institutions on short-term contracts to continue teaching, supervising research, and examining theses. Prof. Prempeh argues that this stop-gap measure is inefficient. It creates administrative burdens and denies these senior academics the security and status of permanent employment, despite their continued contribution to the university system.
The Constitutional Review Committee (CRC)
Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh serves as the Chairman of the CRC, a body tasked with reviewing the 1992 Constitution to identify gaps and recommend amendments that reflect contemporary needs. The submission of the final report to President John Dramani Mahama marks a critical juncture in potential constitutional reforms, with the academic retirement policy being a focal point of discussion.
Analysis
Cognitive Longevity and Academic Prime
The central thesis of Prof. Prempeh’s argument is that the “prime” of an academic does not necessarily coincide with the chronological age of 60. Unlike physically demanding professions, academic work relies heavily on cognitive function, accumulated knowledge, and experience. Research in gerontology and cognitive science suggests that while processing speed may decline with age, crystallized intelligence—vocabulary, verbal analogy, and expertise—often peaks much later in life, sometimes well into the 70s and 80s. By enforcing a compulsory retirement age of 60, the system potentially cuts off scholars when their intellectual output regarding quality and mentorship is at its highest.
The Judiciary Comparison: A Question of Equity
Prempeh’s comparison between university lecturers and the judiciary is particularly potent. Justices of the Superior Court of Judicature in Ghana can serve until age 70. The rationale is to ensure that the immense wisdom required for judicial interpretation is preserved. Prof. Prempeh posits that the transmission of knowledge and the conduct of advanced research in universities require a similar level of preserved wisdom. If the state values the continuity of judicial experience, it should arguably value the continuity of academic mentorship equally.
Debunking the “Youth Unemployment” Link
A common defense of mandatory retirement is that it facilitates generational turnover, thereby opening positions for younger job seekers. Prof. Prempeh labels this as “overly simplistic.” In the university context, a vacancy created by a retiring professor is not automatically filled by a fresh graduate. The recruitment process is rigorous, often requiring PhDs and specific research profiles. Furthermore, the departure of a senior professor often leaves a mentorship vacuum that cannot be immediately filled by a junior hire. Therefore, the academic employment cycle does not function like a simple conveyor belt where one exit creates one entry.
Institutional Efficiency and Autonomy
Currently, the decision to re-engage a retiree lies in administrative loopholes and contract law. Prempeh’s proposal aims to grant universities the discretion to retain faculty based on institutional needs. This shifts the paradigm from a rigid state mandate to a flexible human resource management approach. If a department lacks expertise in a specific niche, retaining a 65-year-old expert is more efficient than searching for a scarce replacement or overburdening junior staff.
Practical Advice
For University Administrators
Institutions should begin preparing policy frameworks that define “fitness to work” for senior academics. This goes beyond physical health to include research output and teaching efficacy. If the proposal is accepted, universities will need robust evaluation mechanisms to decide which staff should be retained beyond 60 and for how long, ensuring that academic tenure remains a mark of merit.
For Policymakers
Policymakers must consider the fiscal implications of extending employment. While retaining experienced staff saves recruitment costs, it impacts the pension payout schedule. A phased implementation or a “work-to-retire” hybrid model could be considered to balance the budget while respecting the intellectual capital of senior scholars.
For Academics (Junior and Senior)
Junior academics should view this proposal not as a blockage of career progression but as an opportunity for longer mentorship. Senior academics, conversely, must recognize that extended service should be contingent upon remaining relevant and updated with current trends in their fields, ensuring that the prolonged working age benefits the student body.
FAQ
Why does Prof. Prempeh want to change the retirement age?
He argues that the current age of 60 is inconsistent with the reality of academic work and that many scholars remain highly productive and mentally sharp well past that age. He believes the current system is inefficient because it forces universities to re-hire these experts as temporary consultants rather than permanent staff.
What is the proposed new retirement age?
The proposal suggests removing the fixed retirement age from the Constitution to allow flexibility. While Prempeh explicitly mentioned “70,” the intent is to allow universities to retain academics as long as they remain productive, potentially until age 80, subject to institutional discretion.
Does this mean fewer jobs for young graduates?
Prof. Prempeh argues no. He explains that the employment mobility in academia does not work on a direct replacement basis. Forcing an older academic to retire does not automatically create a vacancy for a younger person, as the roles and expertise levels differ.
How does this compare to other professions?
Prempeh highlights that judges in Ghana retire at 65 or 70. He questions why university lecturers, who also hold specialized knowledge, should be forced to retire a decade earlier than judges.
Is this a legal amendment?
Yes. The Constitutional Review Committee is proposing an amendment to the 1992 Constitution to facilitate this change. It is not merely a policy shift but a change to the supreme law of the land.
Conclusion
Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh’s critique of the mandatory retirement age for academics opens a vital conversation about how Ghana values its intellectual capital. By highlighting the discrepancy between the current policy and the actual productivity of senior scholars, he challenges the nation to rethink its approach to aging in the academic sector. Moving the retirement age to 70 or beyond is not just about keeping older people in jobs; it is about optimizing the university system for knowledge transfer, mentorship, and efficiency. As the Constitutional Review Committee’s report moves through the legislative process, the future of Ghanaian academia may well depend on whether the country agrees that wisdom, like fine wine, improves with age.
Leave a comment