The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government has tabled legislation that would restore a broad range of benefits and privileges for former presidents, reigniting a contentious debate over public spending, accountability and the use of state resources.
Bill No. 10 of 2026, brought by the PPP/C government and laid in the National Assembly on Friday, seeks to repeal the current framework governing benefits for former heads of state and re-establish provisions that existed under the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act of 2009.
The move has already drawn strong criticism from the Opposition Member of Parliament Ganesh Mahipaul, who described the proposed changes as “unconscionable” and argued that they amount to an open invitation for the abuse of state resources.
According to Mahipaul, who represents the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) the reforms introduced by the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) administration in 2015 did not strip former presidents of reasonable benefits and protections but instead introduced transparency, accountability and limits on taxpayer-funded spending.
“Repealing those safeguards and returning to a system of uncapped and unrestricted benefits would take Guyana backwards at a time when citizens are demanding greater accountability in the management of public resources,” he said.
Former Minister of Finance Winston Jordan has also challenged the government’s justification for repealing the 2015 legislation, particularly assertions by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall that the law could not be applied retroactively.
Jordan argued that the 2015 Act applied equally to all former presidents because it repealed the 2009 legislation and did not contain any provision preserving the unlimited benefits enjoyed by former presidents under the earlier law.
“The 2015 Act applied to all former presidents,” Jordan stated.
Addressing Nandlall’s contention that the law could not operate retroactively, Jordan said the issue of retroactivity never arose.
“It never was; otherwise, those three former presidents would have had to repay the difference between what they received and the new caps. This did not happen because the 2015 Act came into effect after it became law,” Jordan argued.
He further contended that benefits such as medical care and other facilities are not constitutionally protected and therefore can be altered by Parliament.
“Finally, the medical and other benefits are not constitutional (unlike pension and gratuity), which cannot be withheld or adjusted downwards; they are statutory, and can be varied upwards or downwards by Parliament,” Jordan said.
The controversy surrounding benefits for former presidents dates back to the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act of 2009, enacted under the Bharrat Jagdeo administration, which granted a wide range of state-funded privileges in addition to a presidential pension. That piece of legislation covered expenses such as utilities, security, household and clerical staff, transportation, medical care, vacation travel and other facilities, many of which were not subject to financial limits or clear restrictions.
Concerns over the cost and scope of those benefits led the then opposition APNU and AFC in 2013 to push for reforms. They argued that the arrangement placed an excessive burden on taxpayers and was out of step with the economic realities facing ordinary Guyanese. A Bill introduced by then opposition parliamentarian Carl Greenidge sought to place limits on spending, reduce the number of state-funded staff, restrict access to certain benefits, remove tax exemptions and establish conditions under which benefits could be withdrawn. The then President Donald Ramotar vetoed Bill.
The APNU+AFC government moved in 2015 to significantly reduce the benefits available to former presidents by passing the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2015 in the National Assembly. The legislation, which sought to repeal and replace the 2009 law enacted under the PPP/C administration, was approved while PPP/C parliamentarians were absent from the House, having not yet taken up their opposition seats following the May 2015 General and Regional Elections.
Presenting the measure, then Finance Minister Winston Jordan described the existing benefits package as a “vulgar” burden on taxpayers, arguing that it resulted in excessive and unnecessary public expenditure. He maintained that the reforms were necessary to provide greater clarity and limits on benefits available to former heads of state, particularly since former presidents were already entitled to pensions amounting to seven-eighths of the salary of a sitting president.
The 2015 amendments capped utility expenses, reduced staffing levels, restricted medical benefits and removed tax-free concessions, while leaving presidential pensions untouched. The reforms followed years of controversy surrounding the benefits regime.
If the new bill is approved, former presidents would once again be entitled for life to a package of benefits that includes water, electricity and telephone services at their residences, household staff, clerical and technical support, medical care, security services, state-maintained vehicles, toll-free transportation within Guyana, annual vacation allowances and tax exemptions identical to those enjoyed by a sitting president.
In defending the legislation, the Ministry of Finance said the PPP/C government’s proposed amendments would repeal and replace what it described as the flawed 2015 enactment and restore the framework that existed in 2009.
According to the ministry, the 2015 law imposed several restrictions, including a $200,000 annual cap on medical benefits and provisions that allowed former presidents to lose certain benefits if they engaged in private business, trade or paid employment.
“The PPP/C Government is establishing a fair and equitable standard of dignity and support that every President of Guyana, past and future, rightfully deserves,” the ministry said.
The government further argued that former presidents continue to bear representational responsibilities and security obligations after leaving office and therefore require continued state support.
The bill is expected to generate significant debate in the National Assembly, particularly at a time when Guyana’s unprecedented oil revenues have intensified scrutiny of government spending priorities and demands for greater accountability in the management of public resources. The controversy is likely to be further fueled by concerns over poverty and inequality.
According to a 2025 Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report, approximately two-third of Guyanese live in poverty, while more than a third are living in abject poverty. Local analysts contend that the actual figures may be even higher. Against that backdrop, opponents argue that restoring uncapped benefits for former presidents is unconscionable and difficult to justify when many citizens continue to grapple with high living costs, low wages, flooding, unreliable public services and other economic hardships despite the country’s growing oil wealth.
