THERE IS NO NEED FOR LEGISLATION TO CAP ANY BENEFITS TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT

Jul 13, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

There are many people who would not have given a hoot if it were some other President, from some other party, who was enjoying the post-presidency benefits now being showered on former President Bharrat Jagdeo.
But political frustration is driving many people to demand that those benefits be cut or capped. Many who desire this to happen are not doing so out of any concern for the impact of the benefits on the Treasury. If they were, they would have called attention to the large amounts that have to be expended whenever the National Assembly meets, and they would question whether the nation is obtaining value for that obnoxious sum that is necessary to finance those sittings.
It has been a long time since the PPP has been in office. And the frustration and desperation of some persons are obvious. They want to see the government punished. They would love nothing more than the spectacle of seeing a former President humiliated.
This is what is at the heart of much of the criticism of the benefits of Bharrat Jagdeo. There are persons who would love nothing better than to see ill-luck and deprivation visit former PPP government leaders.
I have explained before that the government cannot give effect to any laws to cap the benefits payable to President Jagdeo. To do so would constitute a deprival of property and a denial of the legitimate expectations of the former President, the remedy of which would have to be the restoration of those benefits.
Those benefits cannot be capped under the law, because if they are, there will be an immediate court challenge indicating that the capping amounted to a reduction of legitimate expectations.
There is, however, a sound basis for arguing that the benefits received by the former President are too high. Look, every country has to treat its former leaders well. You cannot have your former leaders living a hand-to-mouth existence. You cannot have them being insecure and not enjoying benefits befitting their former status as leaders of this country.
The very opposition that is now arguing for a reduction in the benefits to former President Jagdeo was protesting the lack of benefits to former President Arthur Chung, as well as to the wife of former President Desmond Hoyte. They felt then that these persons needed to be treated better.
Former President Jagdeo needs to be treated in a manner befitting the high office he held, whether you like him or not. And the opposition has a point about the uncapped nature of his benefits. But the law cannot be made retroactive to the point of denying a man his legitimate expectations.
But surely also, it is patently unfair for the government, which has to provide benefits to the former President, to interpret the statutes in a way as to allow the former President to enjoy security to the tune of 20 million dollars in two years. One bodyguard is good enough.
The former President should be entitled to unlimited medical care, including overseas care, but not to have a medivac for a high temperature. That is unnecessary.
But do not blame the former President. Blame the government. It is the government that is interpreting the law in a way that is granting unreasonable and excessive benefits to the President. It is the government which has to decide what benefits are reasonable for the President.
The law is not the problem. The government is the problem. You are not going to find in any country in the world, including the United States, where there are laws placing a cap on benefits to former Presidents. It is not for legislation to do what responsible governments should do.
Former President Jagdeo does not need more than one bodyguard and one vehicle. He does not need to be taken overseas whenever he has a high temperature. His benefits include an office and office staff, but surely he can be asked by the government to work from his home. Why should he have a separate building as his office?
There is no need to tamper with the law concerning benefits to the former President. We would be making ourselves an embarrassment in front of the international community if we were to bring into being legislation to cap benefits for the President. Has Guyana not been shamed enough in the past by having restrictions placed on food and on only being allowed to leave the country with US$40?
The government has to do its job and interpret the legislation in a way that any reasonable thinking person would. No court would find that those benefits under the law were intended to be unlimited. They cannot be.
And if former President Jagdeo is enjoying excessive benefits, then do not blame the law. Blame the government for being too generous and liberal in its interpretation of its obligations to the former President.

---

---