There is a brewing debate over whether retired public officers who return to serve in new public positions should be entitled to two full salaries. This situation is generating both constitutional and moral arguments, which are sharply dividing opinion.
The debate has been recently stoked by U.S.-based accountant and lawyer, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, widely known as Kwaku Azar. For instance, Prof. Azar is questioning whether a retired Chief Justice who is already drawing a monthly pension of ₵65,000 should also be paid ₵50,000 as a member of the Council of State, as required by the Constitution.
Should this Chief Justice be paid both salaries, it means that in practice, such an official could pocket a combined ₵115,000 each month. But should they? There are numerous arguments people are making for either a said official who falls in this category to be paid both or receive just one.
The Case for “Take Both”
Proponents of this argument maintain that the law is clear. For them, a retirement benefit is an entitlement earned from years of service, and the Council of State appointment is a new mandate with new responsibilities. Denying them their full pay, they believe, would amount to forcing retired officers to work for free in their twilight years.
They maintain that their work after retirement is not charity. For them, you can’t strip away a person’s pension because they accept another appointment since it is a vested right.
The Case for “Take One”
On the other hand, critics of the situation, however, see the double pay as both morally questionable and fiscally irresponsible.
In a country grappling with economic challenges, paying hefty dual salaries to a few senior officers strikes many as a misuse of scarce public resources.
Many question why a retired Chief Justice must earn more than ₵115,000 while ordinary workers struggle on a fraction of that? The resentment, they warn, risks eroding public trust in state institutions.
Are There Other Options?
Prof. Asare lays out other possibilities for resolving the dilemma.
His first suggestion is for such officials to take one plus allowances. This option recommends that he/she take one salary, with only modest allowances for the second role.
The second option is a Pro Bono Service. With this, the state treats Council of State membership as a patriotic duty, not a payday.
The third option is the Case-by-Case Approach. The charges the Salary Commission to weigh in, balancing fairness and fiscal prudence.
What’s Really at Stake
The core of this debate is issues of fairness, sustainability, and symbolism. Should state resources be used to enrich a select few who already enjoy enviable retirement packages, or should public service, especially in advisory roles, be treated as a sacrifice for the common good?
Prof. Kwaku Azar argues that the question is not simply legal but ethical and practical. Ghana, he says, must decide what kind of precedent it wants to set at a time when ordinary citizens are tightening their belts.
The debate has already sparked conversations across boardrooms, WhatsApp platforms, and public forums. Where do you stand?
