A compromise is possible but not likely

Jun 07, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Back in 2009, legislation was passed by the then PPP/C government giving former presidents a wide range of benefits and facilities. These included security, vehicles, staff, utilities, medical expenses and other support, many of which were not subject to clear limits.

Critics argued that the package was too generous and left taxpayers exposed to potentially unlimited costs. They said there were no clear caps on many of the benefits and that the system was open to abuse.

After winning office in 2015, the APNU+AFC administration moved quickly to change the law. It passed the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act 2015, which replaced many of the unlimited benefits with specific limits.

The new law capped utility payments at $25,000 per month each for electricity, water and telephone services. It also limited staffing to a maximum of three persons, including household and personal staff.

Medical expenses were capped at $200,000 annually for the former president, spouse and children under eighteen years old. Security was limited to two personal security officers and transportation was restricted to two state-owned vehicles.

The law also provided a vacation allowance equivalent to two first-class return airfares. In addition, benefits would cease if a former president entered business, accepted paid employment or was convicted of a criminal offence resulting in imprisonment.

The PPP/C fiercely opposed the changes. It argued that the benefits had already been established in law and therefore represented legitimate expectations that could not simply be taken away.

The party also argued that the issue was being exaggerated by its political opponents. It maintained that the benefits available to former presidents were not unusual when compared with international practice.

PPP/C leaders further contended that former presidents continue to face security risks long after leaving office. They said these individuals require transportation, staff and protection because of the positions they once held.

The party also stressed that former presidents often continue to perform ceremonial, diplomatic and advisory functions. Because of this, it argued that their benefits should not be viewed as ordinary pension payments.

Another argument advanced by the PPP/C was that reducing benefits could undermine the dignity of the office. A former president, it said, should be able to maintain a level of standing and respect consistent with having once served as Head of State.

APNU and the AFC saw things differently. They argued that while former presidents deserved benefits, those benefits should be transparent, measurable and subject to reasonable limits.

They maintained that taxpayers should know exactly what they are funding. Unlimited benefits, they argued, create unlimited liabilities.

Now, in 2026, the PPP/C has returned to office and has moved to reverse many of those restrictions. The party now seeks to restore uncapped benefits for former presidents.

That development is hardly surprising. One of the enduring features of Guyanese politics is that governments often spend considerable time undoing what their predecessors did.

What is remarkable, however, is how familiar the arguments now sound. The same PPP/C that once criticized APNU+AFC for increasing ministerial salaries is now asking taxpayers to shoulder potentially unlimited expenses for former presidents.

When APNU+AFC increased ministerial salaries, the PPP/C accused it of fattening ministers while public servants struggled. The criticism was that government leaders should not enrich themselves while ordinary workers received little or nothing.

That argument resonated with many Guyanese. It appealed to a sense of fairness and equity.

Today, however, a similar question arises. Why should former presidents enjoy uncapped benefits while teachers, nurses, police officers and public servants must live within strict limits?

There is another important consideration. Three of Guyana’s four living former presidents are members of the PPP/C.

That fact does not make the legislation wrong. It does, however, make public scrutiny entirely reasonable.

The answer is not to strip former presidents of benefits. Nor is it to create a blank cheque funded by taxpayers.

A sensible compromise exists between those two extremes. Former presidents should receive generous benefits, but those benefits should be subject to reasonable limits.

Security should be capped, but at levels that adequately protect former heads of state. Staffing and transportation should also be capped, but at levels sufficient to allow former presidents to carry out ceremonial and advisory duties.

Utilities should likewise be subject to reasonable limits. Taxpayers should not be required to fund unlimited consumption.

At the same time, there is one area where caps make little sense. Health care should remain uncapped.

Illness does not respect budgets. A former president who develops a serious medical condition should not be denied treatment because an arbitrary ceiling has been reached.

After all, the country has an obligation to care for those who once occupied its highest office. Medical support should therefore be based on need rather than a fixed dollar amount.

Such an approach would preserve both accountability and dignity. It would protect taxpayers while ensuring that former presidents are treated with the respect their service deserves.

Unfortunately, compromise is becoming an endangered species in Guyanese politics. Too often, every criticism is treated as hostility and every suggestion as an attack.

That is unfortunate because good policy is usually found somewhere in the middle. Unlimited benefits invite abuse, while excessively restrictive benefits diminish the office.

Reasonable caps combined with uncapped medical care offer a practical solution. Whether that solution receives serious consideration is another matter entirely.

The PPP/C has every right to disagree with its political opponents. But disagreement should not prevent it from recognising that some of the concerns raised in 2015 were legitimate then and remain legitimate today.

A balanced system can provide a suitable compromise. The question is whether anyone in power is prepared to listen.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

• AFC, APNU, compromise, Peeping Tom, PPP/C Government

---