‘Equity thus depending, essentially, upon the particular circumstances of each individual case, there can be no established rules and fixed precepts of equity laid down, without destroying its very essence, and reducing it to a positive law. And, on the other hand, the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far; lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.’ (Sir William Blackstone. http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-002/).
An editorial in Stabroek News on Mr. Hamilton Green’s pension bill (21/11/16) rightly observed that what the prime minister’s pension should be must have been settled decades ago, and it was. As a matter of principle, I do not believe that once settled, someone’s pension should be encumbered by all manner of emotionally subjective characterizations. Mr. Green is arguably the most negatively conceived figure in Guyanese politics, so while many exude moral indignation, a few are proclaiming justice over his proposed pension. But it would be beneficial if this occasion could, yet again, make us realise that at the root of this quarrel is the inappropriateness of our social institutions particularly when they must sensibly accommodate the communal/partisan nature of our society.
Section 3 of the Pen-sions (President, Pa-rliamentary and Special Offices) Act 1969 as amended in 2011 states: ‘(1) Every person who having held the office of President on or after 16th December 1966 or who having held the office of Prime Minister on or after 22nd December 1965, ceases at any time after such a date to be President or Prime Minister shall be paid a pension under this Act with effect from the date on which he ceases to be President or Prime Minister, as the case may be and, subject to subsection (2), such a pension shall continue to be paid during the lifetime of that person.’
Section 4 (as amended in 1991) states: ‘The President’s pension and the Prime Minister’s pension shall be seven-eighths of the highest annual rate of salary paid to such persons at any time as President or Prime Minister as the case may be or two hundred and four thousand dollars per annum, whichever is the greater.’
The former prime minister’s pension was thus settled and based upon the assumption that under the PPP/C parliamentary pensions were generally increased by the across the board percentage wage increases awarded to public servants, by my very rough calculation Mr. Green’s pension should be about the following. The public service minimum wage was $3,127 in 1992 and is now $50,000 – a 16 times increase. Using 16 as the multiplier, this should mean that the PM’s salary, which was about $29,000 when the PNC demitted office in 1992, should now be $464,000 per month. His pension, which is 7/8 of his salary, should now be $406,000 per month, far removed from the $1,356,250 per month the government has decided to award him.
The former PM claims that he has been receiving much less than this sum and this should be investigated for, when necessary, politicians usually can find ways of rewarding or disappointing those in their purview.
For example, in 1992 when the minimum wage was $3,127, the PM’s salary was $29,000 or about 7 times the minimum wage. Today with a minimum wage of $50,000 the PM’s salary is more than 30 times the minimum wage. By the time the PPP/C left government in 2015, the minimum wage was about $40,000 but a cabinet minister was earning $579,000, not 7 as in 1992 but 14.5 times the minimum wage. As if this was not enough, the APNU+AFC regime lost no time in making their mark in this regard. The minimum wage is $50,000 per month and a cabinet minister’s salary was raised to $870,000 – some 17.4 times the minimum wage!
The above are also reasons why we need independent institutions to deal with these kinds of issues. However, the story does not end there, for a similar contention to Mr. Green’s claim that the sum that is legally due to him is insufficient for himself and his wife to live suitable lives now and in the future was previously made and was conceded by the PPP/C government.
In 2009, having considered the conditions under which former President Hoyte’s widow was living, President Bharrat Jagdeo’s government passed the President Hoyte Pension Act so that ‘the widow of the late President Hoyte shall be entitled to receive an enhanced pension calculated in accordance with section 3 of the Pension (President) Act (2004) from the date when the widow’s pension first became payable’ i.e. December 2002.
In other words, the PPP/C government accepted that whatever was legally due to Mrs. Hoyte deriving from her husband’s presidential salary was insufficient, and thus she was given a pension as if her late husband had received the enhanced extant salary of then President Bharrat Jagdeo, and the pension was also backdated to 2002, when Mr. Hoyte died. The same is now being done for Mr. Green.
Furthermore, by attaching Mr. Green’s name to the Act, the government, like its predecessor, appears to be trying not to create a precedent. But whatever the legal situation, can the wider application of a similar principle be morally avoided? After all, a prime minister is only the first among the sub-category of ministers who themselves are only a sub-category of legislators, all of whom have suitable lives to live!
It appears to me that Mrs. Hoyte, Mr. Green and others were/are appealing to equity, and on the immediate issue, while few would consider Ms. Hoyte undeserving, the same cannot be said for Mr. Green and so some of the very people who advocated for and proclaimed that justice was done in the case of Mrs. Hoyte are now in uproar!
The problem is that we have not seen it fit to establish an institution such as the constitutionally required salaries review commission of Trinidad and Tobago, to objectively consider such matters on an ongoing basis. And fuss as we may, in the absence of such a rule-based arrangement, we are essentially in the realm of animate law, and it is a partisan judge who must consider Mr. Green’s demand for justice!
