President Bharrat Jagdeo is remaining mum on the legality of his nine-year union with former First Lady Varshnie Singh.
For the second straight press conference since Singh disclosed that their union was never registered, Jagdeo refused to answer a question about whether the public deserves an explanation. “I have spoken enough on this matter. I am not going to be saying anything else on it. And I think it’s clear what I said in my document. You, as I said the last time, speak to her.”
Jagdeo and Singh were married according to Hindu rites in July, 1998 and according to Singh there were at least three unsuccessful attempts to register the union. As a result, their marriage was never legal.
When the end of the union was announced in 2007, a statement issued by the by the Office of the President announced an amicable decision to end their “marriage” after growing apart over the years.
But Singh indicated that the parting was not as amicable as had been stated when she went public recently with complaints that she did not receive proper maintenance or care during the union and she accused the head of state of, among other things, psychological domestic violence. She also said he used his authority to sideline her work for her sick children’s charity, the Kids First Fund.
She is also seeking a proper settlement with him and although the union was never legal, the law stipulates that in the division of property, a woman in a common-law marriage is entitled to a share of the property acquired during the marriage. Her decision to go public was preceded by her being locked out of the State House apartment where she had been staying since they announced the end of the union.
The President has, however, accused Singh of giving a “one-sided account of our whole history together,” but has indicated his unwillingness to be drawn into a public debate on the matter. At his previous press briefing, he was firm that he was not going to “feed the gossip columns and the Stabroek News” by saying anything further. “I could have given my side of the story and then she could have given another side and then this would go on forever and then this becomes a major issue; the press can serialise it. I am not getting it. I am not into that,” he said.
In a statement issued after Singh went public, Jagdeo said it was expected that Singh would have left State House when they announced their separation. He said that at the end of his tenure as president in 2011 he would also have to leave the residence and was “forced” to make a “painful decision” and take steps to have Singh leave, since she refused to do so despite numerous promises.
In response to charges that he denied her access to resources to support her charity work, the President said he had made it clear to her on more than one occasion that the resources of the state could not be used to support the work of a private charity, adding that it would be unethical for him to allow it.
On the division of assets, Jagdeo said he was “prepared to meet all my obligations to her provided for by the laws of Guyana,” but declared that he could not meet her demands to hand over government lands and other assets and provide duty and VAT-free concessions as part of the settlement.