Accra, Ghana – In the bustling markets and quiet villages of Ghana, a debate is brewing: Should the nation raise its retirement age from 60 to 65? The proposal has sparked controversy, igniting discussions about the realities of life for the average Ghanaian worker. For many, the prospect of working five more years feels less like a policy improvement and more like a burden, a sentiment fueled by concerns about longevity, quality of life, and who truly benefits from such a change. Recent reports and demographic data paint a concerning picture, leading many experts to believe that raising the Ghana retirement age could be a detrimental misstep.

One poignant story circulates among union members in Accra. A 58-year-old teacher, Ama, who dreams of returning to her family farm, expressed her worries: “Will I even live to see 65? And if I do, what kind of health will I be in?” Her concerns echo the fears of countless Ghanaians who view retirement not as an extended work sentence, but as a well-deserved period of rest and family.

The core argument against raising the Ghana retirement age centers on a stark reality: Ghana’s life expectancy. According to the World Bank’s 2023 data, the average Ghanaian lives for 64.5 years. This figure is not only significantly lower than the global average of 73.4 years but also pales in comparison to OECD countries, where life expectancy often exceeds 80 years. Further emphasizing this point, only a small fraction—3.62%—of Ghanaians are aged 65 or older. This reality directly contradicts the notion that extending working years aligns with increased longevity for the majority of the population.

Data reveals that 71% of Ghanaians who reach 60 do not live to see their 65th birthday. Raising the retirement age, therefore, could effectively mean that many Ghanaians will be compelled to work until their final days, a proposition that raises serious ethical questions. Compounding the issue is Ghana’s limited geriatric care and social support systems, which are far less developed than those in the Global North. Longevity in Ghana, unfortunately, does not automatically translate to healthy aging, raising the specter of more Ghanaians working until they “literally drop,” as critics of the policy have stated.

Beyond mere survival, the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) provides a more nuanced lens through which to view this issue. QALYs consider both the quality and quantity of life lived, acknowledging that the last years of life may be marked by declining health and increased stress. For many Ghanaians, the final 6.5 years are characterized by these challenges. Extending the retirement age into this period, critics argue, is not only inhumane but also exacerbates existing social inequities. The proposal fails to adequately consider the impacts of workplace stress, limited healthcare access, poor nutrition, and a lack of rehabilitation opportunities.

Instead of extending the Ghana retirement age, attention should be directed towards improving the quality of life post-retirement. This includes ensuring access to affordable healthcare, adequate social support, and opportunities for meaningful engagement in community life.

Looking beyond Ghana’s borders, a comparison with other Global South countries reveals that Ghana’s approach is far from standard. Nigeria, for example, with a life expectancy even lower than Ghana’s, restricts retirement age increases to elite professions. Similarly, Kenya and Uganda carefully calibrate retirement age adjustments based on detailed mortality data. Ghana’s proposition, by contrast, is a blanket increase to 65, regardless of profession or health status. This is not a strategic reform, but rather, “policy laziness,” as one commentator put it.

While Ghana does have differentiated retirement ages for certain professions—Supreme Court Justices retire at 70, for example—these are exceptions, not templates for a universal standard. Applying the same standard to all workers is seen by many as an injustice rooted in elite detachment from the realities faced by the average Ghanaian. The question then becomes, who stands to benefit from this proposed change? The answer, critics argue, lies in the balance sheets of pension schemes like SSNIT, which would see reduced liabilities and fewer long-term payouts. Meanwhile, the elite class, who typically enjoy better working conditions and longer lifespans, would also reap the rewards.

Concerns are rising that this is essentially the “monetization of mortality,” not genuine reform. It is important to visualize what the SSNIT payout projections look like with and without the proposed increase in the retirement age. Such data could help to explain where the impetus for this proposal comes from.

Good governance, underpinned by ethical considerations, must be rooted in the lived realities of the people. Policies should aim to improve health outcomes, enhance income security, and ensure a dignified retirement for all citizens. Policymakers need to ask themselves a critical question: “Do we want our citizens to work until death, or to retire with dignity?” Prioritizing access to preventive healthcare, enhancing pension coverage and equity, and creating flexible retirement pathways based on sectoral realities should be paramount.

International research, largely conducted in high-income countries, suggests a correlation between working longer and increased longevity. However, this correlation is contingent upon factors such as job type, working conditions, and access to quality healthcare. To assume that this correlation holds true across all professions in Ghana is a dangerous oversimplification. Any benefits are most likely to accrue to those in low-stress, high-autonomy, well-compensated roles. A responsible approach requires granular actuarial data and mortality statistics disaggregated by occupation, geography, and socio-economic status. This level of detail would allow for the responsible identification of professions where increasing working life could yield a better balance.

The current system fosters chronic anxiety among workers, particularly those in the informal sector, leading to instances of age-tampering in an attempt to prolong working years. The policy goal should be to create a humane and responsive system that reduces anxiety, not one that institutionalizes it. It’s important to acknowledge that Ghana’s population is overwhelmingly youthful, with a median age of 21.5 years. Over 57% of the population is under 25, according to the 2021 Population and Housing Census. The argument for extending working life based on long-term pension sustainability falters when the majority of Ghanaians are decades away from retirement.

In conclusion, the proposal to raise the Ghana retirement age to 65 is a misguided policy based on flawed assumptions about longevity and quality of life. Empirical data demonstrates that a significant portion of Ghanaians will not live long enough to enjoy retirement, and extending working years without addressing underlying health and economic issues will only exacerbate existing inequalities. Instead of focusing on extending working lives, Ghana should prioritize improving healthcare, enhancing pension coverage, and creating flexible retirement pathways that reflect the diverse realities of its workforce. It’s time to retire this idea and focus on policies that truly benefit the people of Ghana.