A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Carl Greenidge has tabled amendments to the President’s Benefits and Other Facilities Act of 2009, proposing to slice away chunks of benefits that a former President is presently entitled to and limit them to a maximum of 10 years.
Greenidge’s Bill, called the President’s Benefits and Other Facilities (Amendment) Bill 2012, was tabled on Monday, October 22. This Bill seeks to render the conditions of the benefits acceptable and predictable and to place a limit on benefits including tax-free concessions and sets out conditions under which these benefits could be enjoyed.
With regard to utilities, Greenidge said that his Bill proposes to cap a former President’s monthly payments. Greenidge said that household staff will be limited to three persons; security personnel limited to two persons and clerical or technical staff limited to three persons all of whom must not be engaged in any political work.
Greenidge’s amendment to the Act also limits the former President to two vehicles to be owned and maintained by the State.
The Bill proposes that a former President is entitled to free medical attention and treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the former President and his or her spouse or entitled children “provided such attention and treatment are sought outside of Guyana only if unavailable in Guyana at governmental institutions or at the private sector if unavailable in the governmental institutions.”
The Bill says too that the medical benefits shall only be applicable to natural children of the former President and spouse, below the age of 18 years, subject to a financial limit of $200,000 annually
Section 2 subsection (h) of the Bill also amends the Principal Act to stipulate that a former President who is in receipt of the benefits and other facilities provided for in the Act shall not be entitled to receive additional benefits by way of tax exemptions and other concessions and privileges.
Section 4 of the Bill seeks to amend the Principal Act to read that a former President shall cease to be entitled to the benefits and other facilities by the Principal Act if the former President “engages in business, trade or paid employment or is charged with a criminal offence or is cited by any court in Guyana or outside of Guyana for such infringements of the law.”
Greenidge is dismayed that there still seems to be some confusion over the intention of the Bill. “This Bill…seems to be the subject of deliberate misunderstanding. It is related to the President’s benefits. Now let me make it clear, there was a motion and the motion was passed by the House,” he said.
“The preamble to the motion looked at two things: the President’s pension and the fact that it was already very large; and additional benefits not covered in the Constitution but added by President Bharrat Jagdeo in 2009 when he was in office. And we are saying that whatever are the rights or wrongs of adding these benefits outside of the Constitution, there should be caps, because the legislation is badly drafted,” he said. “The former President cannot be entitled to an unlimited number of vehicles and other things while the Government itself [does not collect] unlimited taxes,” said Greenidge.
He said that the Bill has nothing to do with the Select Committee examining the President’s pension as that relates to those of MPs and other office holders.
“There is a controversy as to whether the President is eligible for anything other than a pension,” Greenidge said. “When a man is getting $1 million a month tax free as a pension, justification for giving him additional benefits becomes a problem,” he said, though making clear that the legislation does nothing to interfere with the pension to which the former President is entitled.
“There is the question of whether he could have another paying job and still enjoy the benefits. We propose that if he gets another job or is cited for a criminal offence [in Guyana or overseas] he will not be entitled to those benefits,” he said. “If he is [engaged] in a business or is trading he will get no tax concessions,” said Greenidge.
Greenidge also tabled at the October 22 sitting the Fiscal Management and Accountability Amendment Bill with a view to correcting what he called contraventions of the spirit of the Constitution.
Speaking to Stabroek News, Greenidge explained that the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act – passed by the Government in 2003 – contained elements that contravene the general spirit of the Constitution which pronounces on the autonomy of constitutional agencies – like GECOM, the Audit Office – those agencies which are not on the schedule on the Act.
“Remember there was a motion on this matter that the House debated and approved. We had expected the Minister of Finance to take expeditious action to implement the decision of the motion. No action has been taken,” he said.
“The first unconstitutional thing that was in the FMAA was the mention of the Audit Office. It is supposed to be financially independent and autonomous. It means that the Audit Office, like the Judiciary and the Service Commissions, [their Accounting Officer] would send to the Parliament, whether directly or via the Ministry of Finance a request for their budget. The Minister of Finance will look at it and have his own views. The Parliament when it comes to consider the matter unchanged by the Minister would then hear the Minister’s views and then together they would agree to an amount. The intention of the block vote is that you will agree in Parliament either a lump sum or no lump sum but you can change the figure and hopefully some sensible principle will guide it,” he said.
“If the Ministers and the Parliament are allowed to go into the elements of the budget then they are in effect controlling the work of the agency,” he said. Greenidge said too that the Government has still found ways of frustrating the work of many of the service commissions. “By this motion and the amendment to the list, we are trying to ensure that they have the financial autonomy that is always intended,” he said.
“When the Government realised that we had brought a motion and were going to back it with legislation, they corrected the situation with regards to the Audit Office. But in correcting the situation all they did was take it off the list. That was all we had intended to do. As far as we are concerned it has no implications for anything else,” he said.
