When then Finance Minister Winston Jordan rose in the National Assembly on July 9, 2015, he delivered a blistering indictment of the benefits being enjoyed by former presidents at taxpayers’ expense.
The package, enacted under the Bharrat Jagdeo administration in 2009, was nothing short of “vulgar,” Jordan declared, arguing that it represented an insult to ordinary Guyanese who were funding lavish perks for former heads of state while many struggled to make ends meet.
More than a decade later, that controversy has returned to the forefront of national debate, with the PPP/C Government moving to repeal the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act No. 3 of 2015—the law that imposed limits on those benefits—and restore the far more generous regime established under the 2009 legislation.
The original Act, passed during Jagdeo’s presidency, granted former presidents a pension equivalent to seven-eighths of the salary of a sitting president, along with a sweeping range of taxpayer-funded benefits. These included unlimited local and overseas medical treatment, free utilities, household staff, clerical and technical personnel, state-maintained vehicles, security services, toll-free transportation and annual first-class travel benefits.
The legislation imposed few meaningful restrictions on the scope or cost of those benefits.
Jordan argued at the time that while Guyanese accepted that former presidents should live in dignity after leaving office, the package reflected a level of entitlement that was incompatible with public service.
“It thumbs its nose at the hard working taxpayer,” he told the National Assembly.
To illustrate the disparity, Jordan cited the case of a retired graduate headmistress who, after more than 34 years of service, was receiving a monthly pension of just $86,857. In contrast, former presidents were entitled to pensions exceeding $1.4 million per month, automatically increasing whenever the salary of a sitting president increased.
“This, conceivably, could lead to a scenario where a former president could enjoy a pension that is larger than his income at the time he demitted office,” Jordan warned.
He further disclosed that a claim for annual first-class travel benefits had cost taxpayers $7.46 million. While he did not identify the claimant, former President Jagdeo was the only beneficiary of the law at the time. Jordan also questioned a claim that included travel benefits for a spouse, noting that no spouse had been identified by the claimant.
The APNU+AFC administration subsequently repealed the 2009 law and replaced it with the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act No. 3 of 2015.
The reforms did not eliminate benefits. Rather, they sought to place limits on them. Utility allowances were capped at $75,000 per month compared with previous monthly expenditures averaging approximately $370,000. Household staff were limited to three persons, security personnel to two, clerical and technical staff to three, and state-provided vehicles to two. Medical reimbursements were also capped and made subject to conditions.
Importantly, the legislation left untouched the substantial presidential pension.
Jordan said the changes were necessary to curb wasteful spending and restore a measure of decency to public life.
Invoking the legacy of the late President and PPP founder Dr. Cheddi Jagan, he argued that Jagan would have been “appalled and disgusted” by the extravagance of the 2009 legislation.
The PPP/C fiercely resisted efforts to curtail the benefits.
In 2013, then President Donald Ramotar vetoed legislation passed by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) that sought similar restrictions. After the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) administration enacted the 2015 law, Jagdeo and Ramotar launched separate legal challenges seeking to overturn the reforms.
The former presidents argued that the legislation unlawfully reduced benefits they had accrued under the previous law and should not be applied to them. The lawsuits, filed in November 2015, sought declarations and orders aimed at restoring the benefits that had been capped.
The legal proceedings dragged on for years without a final determination.
Now, with the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) back in office, Attorney General Anil Nandlall has last Friday tabled legislation to repeal the 2015 Act and restore the framework that existed under the 2009 law.
The proposed repeal has reignited concerns that Guyana is moving back toward the uncapped benefits regime that the APNU+AFC administration argued was financially excessive and disconnected from the realities facing ordinary taxpayers.
The timing of the proposed repeal is particularly striking given Guyana’s economic and social realities.
On paper, Guyana is one of the world’s great economic success stories. Fueled by oil production, the country has been ranked among the fastest-growing economies globally and is now regarded as one of the richest countries per capita in the region. Yet that prosperity has not been evenly shared.
According to the Inter-American Development Bank’s 2025 report on Guyana, approximately 58 percent of the population lives in poverty, while 32 percent lives in conditions of extreme or abject poverty. Local economists and social commentators have argued that the figures may in fact be higher due to deficiencies in data collection and the rapid increase in the cost of living in recent years.
Against that backdrop, the prospect of restoring uncapped taxpayer-funded benefits for former presidents presents a stark and painful contrast. While many families continue to struggle with rising food prices, housing costs, inadequate public services and economic insecurity, Parliament is being asked to remove limits on benefits for individuals who have already occupied the highest office in the land and continue to receive substantial state-funded pensions.
The move comes at a time when many Guyanese continue to face economic hardship despite the country’s unprecedented oil revenues. Pensioners, public servants and low-income families continue to grapple with rising living costs, while debates persist over poverty, inequality and the allocation of public resources.
Against that backdrop, questions are being asked about why restoring uncapped benefits for former presidents has emerged as a legislative priority.
For many observers, the issue extends beyond the benefits themselves. It speaks to competing visions of public service—whether elected office is a temporary responsibility carried out on behalf of citizens or a gateway to lifelong privileges funded by taxpayers.
More than a decade after Jordan branded the benefits package “vulgar,” Parliament is once again being asked to decide whether Guyana should return to the very system his government moved to dismantle.
