An investigation conducted and documents obtained by Verity News reveal that Mr. Saye M. Zarwolo, who has reached Liberia’s official retirement age, has been reappointed as Director of Human Resources in the Judiciary Branch, even though his name appears on the official list of expected retirees this year.
This reappointment comes despite his inclusion on the Judiciary’s official 2025 pension list, which was formally submitted to the Civil Service Agency (CSA).
The decision, personally signed and approved by Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., has triggered backlash within judicial circles, particularly among retirees who are now questioning the integrity and fairness of the process.
The Reappointment
On August 26, 2025, Mr. Zarwolo received a formal letter from the Office of the Chief Justice transferring him from his position as Research Supervisor at the James A.A. Pierre Judicial Institute to Director of Human Resources at the Judiciary Headquarters.
The letter cites his dual graduate degrees in Public Administration and Human Resource Development from Strayer University, USA, as well as over a decade of experience in personnel management, as grounds for the reassignment.
It states that the move aligns with the Judiciary’s policy of placing staff based on their qualifications for “efficient and maximum productivity.”
Chief Justice Gbeisay praised Mr. Zarwolo’s prior performance and expressed “full confidence” in his ability to execute his duties with “efficiency and dedication.”
Contradiction on Paper
However, glaring contradictions have emerged. Mr. Zarwolo’s National Identification Card, voter registration, and medical records all confirm his date of birth as June 8, 1960, making him 65 years old, which is the mandatory retirement age for civil servants under Liberian law.
Even more telling, Mr. Zarwolo is listed as No. 8 on the Judiciary’s “Employees Qualified for Pension in 2025” list submitted on July 18, 2025, by Court Administrator Cllr. Elizabeth J. Nelson to the Civil Service Agency.
This contradiction raises serious questions about policy enforcement, favoritism, and transparency within the upper ranks of the Judiciary.
Selective Retirement?
Several judicial employees who are also slated for retirement say the move is unjust and smacks of double standards.
“We were told there are no exceptions. Everyone reaching retirement age must go. But then, overnight, Mr. Zarwolo is reassigned to a top position. It’s disheartening,” said one staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another retiree commented: “It seems the rules apply only to some of us. If he can be brought back by the Chief Justice on grounds that he’s still strong, why not the rest of us who are still strong and qualified?”
Health & Fitness Concerns
In addition to his age, Mr. Zarwolo’s medical records from Cone Health Sports Medicine in North Carolina, USA, reveal that he has been diagnosed with tricompartmental osteoarthritis in his left knee, along with a degenerative medial meniscus tear.
Doctors recommended limited physical activity, use of compression sleeves, daily therapeutic exercises, and caution in taking on physically demanding roles, at least for the next two to three months.
Critics argue that reappointing someone with known physical limitations to a high-level, stress-prone administrative role not only raises efficiency concerns but also contradicts the same rationale used to retire others.
Controversial New Appointments
The controversy surrounding Mr. Zarwolo’s return comes amid a wave of new judicial appointments recently announced by the Judiciary. These include:
Cllr. Alice Sirleaf, Assistant Court Administrator
Atty. Edwina Vakum, Chief of Office Staff, Chamber of the Chief Justice
Cllr. Andrew Nimely, National Jury Manager
Mr. Saye Zarwolo, Director of Personnel
Cllr. Michael Korkpor, Director, Judicial Monitoring, Evaluation & Accountability
Cllr. Korpo Tomah, Deputy Jury Manager
Ms. Faith Dixon, Assistant Director of Personnel for Human Resources
Judicial insiders note that while the Chief Justice has constitutional authority to make appointments, resurrecting the career of a listed retiree, especially one with documented health challenges, sets a troubling precedent.
However, sources within the Civil Service Agency (CSA) have confirmed that Mr. Zarwolo’s name is indeed on the 2025 pension list submitted by the Judiciary.
If that list is still being honored, questions arise as to what exemptions, if any, were granted, and on what legal or procedural basis.
The unfolding situation has exposed a deep fracture in the implementation of public sector retirement policies.
Among the questions being raised: Why was Mr. Zarwolo included on the pension list if a reassignment was already planned?
Was there a formal exemption granted by the CSA or any oversight body?
Are retirement policies being applied uniformly and transparently across the Judiciary?
Until these issues are formally addressed, public trust in the Judiciary’s internal governance and the civil service retirement process more broadly, may continue to erode.
