Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
…says his benefits are no different to those offered to other former presidents
The benefits and facilities afforded to former President David Granger is no different from those offered to the other former presidents, the People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) said on Saturday as it sought to set the record straight in response to a statement made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo.
The PNCR said it has taken note of an article published in the state-owned Guyana Chronicle under the headlined “Granger exited office with $35.2M Lexus,” for which the remarks were attributed to Vice President Jagdeo.
To ease any misconception, PNCR made it clear that Former President David Granger is entitled only to benefits and facilities in accordance with the ‘Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act.’
These include the provision of “…not more than two motor vehicles maintained by the state,” the party pointed out. These conditions, it said, are identical to those provided to former presidents Samuel Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar.
“Mr Granger was assigned a motor vehicle which remains part of a reserve fleet of state-owned motor cars. The fleet’s vehicles were used for of the ceremonial inauguration convoy of President Irfaan Ali and state and official visits of President Akufo-Addo of Ghana; Prime Ministers Ralph Gonzalves, Keith Mitchell, Mia Mottley, Keith Rowley, and Roosevelt Skerritt of the Caribbean Community and some members of the delegation accompanying Secretary of State Michael Pompey of the USA, among others,” the party pointed out.
It noted that the vehicle to which Vice-President Jagdeo referred could have been assigned for Mr Granger’s use only by the Office of the President. “It is the property of the Government of Guyana. It is not private property. It could be withdrawn at any time at the discretion and on the direction of the President and replaced with another in accordance with the ‘Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act,’ it emphasised.
