High Court overturns challenge to Presidents’ benefits
January 25, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under News
Source - kaieteur News
The Former Presidents’ (Benefits and other Facilities) Act survived its first real test when Executive Member of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Desmond Trotman, failed to persuade the High Court to rule it unconstitutional, null and void.
Trotman, through his Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, failed also to have a Conservatory Order issued to preserve the status ante –the situation that existed prior to the date when the Act came into force– until the determination of the hearing.
Trotman in his Statement of Claim pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides: “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension or, upon the expiration of his term of office, such gratuity as may he prescribed by Parliament. Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.”
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the president shall be entitled to certain benefits.
The benefits include payment in respect of the expenses incurred in the provision and use of water, electricity and telephone services at the place of residence in Guyana; services of personal and household staff including an attendant and a gardener; services of clerical and technical staff, if requested; free medical attendance and medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for the medical attendance or treatment of himself and the dependant members of his family; full-time personal security and services of the Presidential Guard Service at the place of residence; the provision of motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State; toll free road transportation in Guyana; an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same basis as that granted to serving members of the Judiciary and a tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving President.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however has determined that the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities to which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the court that the plaintiff-applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act.
“Indeed, Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities, and sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory order as prayed for by the plaintiff-applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.”
Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a conservatory order.
January 25, 2012 | By KNews | Filed Under News
Source - kaieteur News
The Former Presidents’ (Benefits and other Facilities) Act survived its first real test when Executive Member of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Desmond Trotman, failed to persuade the High Court to rule it unconstitutional, null and void.
Trotman, through his Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, failed also to have a Conservatory Order issued to preserve the status ante –the situation that existed prior to the date when the Act came into force– until the determination of the hearing.
Trotman in his Statement of Claim pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides: “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension or, upon the expiration of his term of office, such gratuity as may he prescribed by Parliament. Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.”
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the president shall be entitled to certain benefits.
The benefits include payment in respect of the expenses incurred in the provision and use of water, electricity and telephone services at the place of residence in Guyana; services of personal and household staff including an attendant and a gardener; services of clerical and technical staff, if requested; free medical attendance and medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for the medical attendance or treatment of himself and the dependant members of his family; full-time personal security and services of the Presidential Guard Service at the place of residence; the provision of motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State; toll free road transportation in Guyana; an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same basis as that granted to serving members of the Judiciary and a tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving President.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however has determined that the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities to which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the court that the plaintiff-applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act.
“Indeed, Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities, and sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory order as prayed for by the plaintiff-applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.”
Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a conservatory order.