Facing growing scrutiny over the pension that President Bharrat Jagdeo will earn when he demits office, Office of the President (OP) on Friday night released the pensions received by former president Arthur Chung and the previous first ladies.
However, OP did not disclose a computation of the pension and benefits that Jagdeo is set to receive.
Opposition parties, particularly the AFC have been calling for the PPP/C party /government to tabulate the pension and benefits that Jagdeo will earn on demitting office. The AFC has computed a figure of $3.2 million monthly, which the government has rejected, but is yet to produce a figure to counter.
Permanent Secretary in the OP Dr Nanda Gopaul, in a letter published in today’s Stabroek News, said he wanted “to offer clarification on the benefits received by former presidents and their widows following the passing of Act#8 of 2009.
According to Gopaul, on December 3, 2004, Mrs Joyce Hoyte (wife of former president Desmond Hoyte), received $87,143. Following the passage of President Hoyte Pensions Bill 2009 Mrs Hoyte received $347,395 for 2006. In 2007, she received $378,660; in 2008 $489,468; and in November 2010, she was paid $543,543.
Meanwhile, Gopaul said Mrs Janet Jagan received $125,867 per month in 2000 and from October 1, 2006 she received $729,529 monthly. In addition, the Office of the President said, she received a salary of $137, 938 in March 2009 as legislator, and $876,692 as ex-president.
Former President Arthur Chung received, from October 1, 2006 $729,529 per month, with the last amount being paid in June 2008 to the tune of $1,085,427. His widow, Mrs Chung, received a widow’s pension of $542,714 up to August 2009, Gopaul indicated.
Gopaul also said they were also entitled to motor vehicles and drivers, a gardener, payment of utilities’ bills (electricity/telephone/water), payment for security at the residence or the provision of security personnel, payment of maids, payment for medical expenditure, payment of an annual vacation allowance for ex-president and spouse, and duty-free concession for motor vehicles.
However, a source close to the Hoytes denied that they received all the benefits outlined in Gopaul’s letter. The source stated that Hoyte never received a pension connected to his position as former president and said that Hoyte purchased a vehicle with the duty-free concession afforded him as a Member of Parliament. According to the source, a guard was provided by the state. The guard also doubled as a driver, this newspaper was told. This arrangement continued until the death of Mrs Hoyte, the source indicated. The source was unable to say whether the government paid the couple’s utility bills but was certain that they never received the other benefits outlined in the letter.
Speaking specifically about Mrs Hoyte, the source said that following the death of her husband, she only received a pension after a long fight. Stabroek News was told that Mrs Hoyte never received any vacation allowance. According to the source, she travelled once to the US for an operation which she paid for out of her own money.
The source indicated that Gopaul in his letter seemed to have missed the point. “Nobody is saying that the President not should get a pension… but it is the quantum that Mr Jagdeo is getting that has started this ruckus,” the source said. Observers have pointed to the absence of caps on the benefits.
Meantime, PPP/C Executive Member Robert Persaud on Friday responded “to the Opposition and their friends in sections of the media” who have taken issue with his description of the presidential pension as “extraneous” and not a “serious” issue.
According to Persaud, who is the PPP/C’s campaign manager, “the pension received by the President is the same as the pension received by public officers in accordance with section 11 of the Pensions (President, Parliamentary and Special Officers) Act, Chapter 27:03 of the Laws of Guyana which was passed in 1969”. He pointed to Section 8 of the Act which described “those who are beneficiaries and includes all members of the National Assembly” and noted that Section 9 makes it clear that this is a contributory pension scheme and the beneficiaries all contribute.
“The question that must be asked is whether it is being proposed that the President of Guyana and all other pensioners who are similarly qualified should now receive less than what they deserve as prescribed by the Pensions Act of 1969,” he said.
“It must be reiterated that the President’s salary is the same as the salary of the Chancellor and the Attorney General,” Persaud said, adding that the Attorney General’s salary became equated to that of the Chancellor when former President Forbes Burnham decided that he wanted Chancellor Massiah to be appointed Attorney General. “Are the opposition elements proposing that the pension of the Chancellor, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General must be adjusted downwards? Further, are these opposition elements suggesting that the pension benefit proved for under the Pension Act of 1969 be amended?” Persaud added.
“What the Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act 2009 dealt with was all the other benefits that were previously discretionary,” Persaud said, stating that these have now been identified and limited to those that are recognised in the 2009 Act. “Past Presidents including Arthur Chung, Desmond Hoyte, Janet Jagan they have all enjoyed these benefits which are today codified,” Persaud said, an assertion which PNCR Leader Robert Corbin had previous denied.
