Granger, Ramotar and Jagdeo unaffected by “benefits cap”

Presidential Benefits Act…

– legislation affects only “future” Presidents

Contrary to what some sections of society had hoped for, the passage of the Former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2015 will not affect those individuals who served as Presidents prior to the amendments which were made when the Bill was tabled in the National Assembly on July 9. Therefore, the new provisions provided for in the law will absolutely have no effect on former Presidents Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar, nor will it affect current President David Granger. The changes will, however, affect future Presidents.

Former President Bharrat Jagdeo

But, even if Granger succeeds in serving a second term as President of Guyana, the current law will not apply to him because he was initially sworn in as President of Guyana when the law at the time provided the same benefits in which Jagdeo and Ramotar are now enjoying. The changes made in the Bill now allow a capped allowance of $75,000 for water, electricity and telephone expenses per month, three household staff and three technical and clerical staff. Former Presidents and their children will also be subject to a financial limit of $200,000 per annum in free medical attention and treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a former President himself and his children below the age of 18 years and the former President would not be allowed more than two motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State. In addition, his security detail shall not exceed two persons including the services of the Presidential Guard Service at the residence and will only receive an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return tickets provided on the same conditions applicable to the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature. The benefits will not be subjected to any tax exemptions, concessions or privileges. Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall had stated that the Former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2015, which repeals the Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act 2009, will not affect or apply to former Presidents who were sworn in while the latter Act was in effect. Therefore, Nandlall pointed out that any attempt to use the new Bill as an instrument to deny and deprive any or all of the aforementioned persons their entitlement under the 2009 Act, would be unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.

President David Granger

The former Legal Affairs Minister supported his position by making references to Articles 222 (1-4) of the Constitution. He declared that the salaries and allowances of those holding such offices as the President are charged to the Consolidated Fund, hence they are not subjected to the approval or disapproval of the National Assembly. In fact, he stated this is an indication of the level of protection and the security of tenure which the Constitution accords to these office holders.

Furthermore, Nandlall referred to Article 222 (3) which protects the salaries, allowances and terms of service from any alteration that will cause the office holder to lose his or her benefits after their appointment. He added “as it relates to Presidents, I submit that the benefits and other facilities conferred by the 2009 Act are captured in these “allowances and terms of service” to which Article 223 makes reference. It is clear, therefore, that while the remuneration package of these office holders can increase, no diminution is permitted even after they would have left office”. Commenting on President Granger’s position, Nandlall outlined that the current President assumed office while the 2009 Act is in force, and as such, he is guaranteed certain facilities and benefits which will accrue to him when he ceases to hold the Office of President.

Former President Samuel Hinds

“Article 222(3) protects those facilities and benefits from any alteration to his detriment. The 2015 Bill cannot, and does not, affect those facilities and benefits,” the former Attorney General positioned. He further outlined that the courts, both in Guyana and throughout the Commonwealth, have given varied possible definitions to the term “property” to include money, rent charges, mortgages, easements, shares, or anything that has economic value.

Former President Donald Ramotar

Nandlall went onto say that every single entitlement listed in the 2009 Act as a benefit or facility to a former President, is capable of being converted into monetary or economic value. These entitlements he said, therefore, are the legal property of those to whom they statutorily accrue and Article 142 of the Constitution prevents the repeal of the Act by this 2015 Bill from having the effect of compulsorily acquiring the property which the 2009 Act confers, without prompt and adequate compensation.