Veteran trade unionist and General Secretary of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), Lincoln Lewis, has delivered a stinging critique of the Government’s move to restore unlimited benefits for former presidents, arguing that the proposal reflects a political culture increasingly detached from the struggles of ordinary citizens despite Guyana’s unprecedented oil wealth.
Writing in his Eye on Guyana column under the headline “While Government Feeds at the Trough, the Opposition Prevaricates,” Lewis criticised the administration of President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo for seeking to reverse reforms that placed limits on benefits available to former heads of state.
“I stand by my statement in 2015 regarding the 2009 Former Presidents’ Benefits Act that politics in Guyana has become a gravy train,” Lewis wrote. “The move by the Irfaan Ali/Bharrat Jagdeo regime to repeal the 2015 Former Presidents’ Benefits Act so they can return to unlimited benefits after leaving office is vulgar and unconscionable. It is riding on the backs of workers and ordinary people and should be withdrawn.“
Lewis’ position is not new.
In a letter to the editor published in December 2015, after former Presidents Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar moved to challenge amendments introduced by the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) administration to limit benefits available to former heads of state, Lewis voiced similar concerns about what he viewed as a growing culture of political entitlement.
At the time, he wrote: “It is clear that politics has become a gravy train. The public mantra about service to the people no longer matters. The act by Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar to go to court in order that they can live luxurious lives, has confirmed a view held in many quarters: politicians don’t care a damn about the people.”
More than a decade later, Lewis argues that the current attempt to repeal the 2015 amendments validates the concerns he expressed then.
The controversy centres on legislation governing benefits for former presidents.
The original Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act of 2009, enacted under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C ) administration, granted extensive state-funded benefits to former heads of state. In 2015, shortly before leaving office, the Donald Ramotar administration assented to amendments that further expanded those benefits. Following its election later that year, the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) government enacted legislation capping and limiting several of those benefits.
The Ali administration is now seeking to repeal those restrictions and restore broader benefits, a move that has generated criticism from sections of civil society and political commentators who argue that the proposal comes at a time when many Guyanese continue to face significant economic challenges.
Lewis stressed that his objection is not to pensions.
“Let me make this very clear: the right to a pension is respected and is not the issue. Anyone who has served in the presidency is entitled to a pension. That is not what is offensive here,” he wrote.
“What remains offensive is the manner in which these leaders are ensuring that their post-presidency is as good as, or even better than, their actual tenure in office, and doing so at the expense of the taxpaying public.”
The veteran labour leader framed the debate within the broader context of Guyana’s oil economy.
Since oil production began in December 2019, Guyana has accumulated billions of U.S. dollars in petroleum revenues from profit oil and royalties and has consistently ranked among the world’s fastest-growing economies. More than US$8.7 billion has flowed into Guyana’s coffers from oil production since first oil was achieved in December 2019. Driven by aggressive development of the ExxonMobil-operated Stabroek Block, petroleum revenues have reshaped the country’s finances and created opportunities unmatched in its history.
Yet concerns persist over poverty, income inequality and the extent to which oil revenues are improving the lives of ordinary citizens.
Lewis argued that the contrast between national wealth and everyday realities is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
“The teacher pays taxes. The nurse pays taxes. The public servant pays taxes. The sugar worker pays taxes. The bauxite worker pays taxes,” he wrote. “The ordinary people who create the wealth of this nation are taxed every month, yet they are being asked to fund unlimited benefits for a privileged political class.“
He contended that a government genuinely concerned with the welfare of its people would focus on improving living standards rather than expanding benefits for former office holders.
“The workers of this nation have been asking for a livable wage for years. The trade union movement has repeatedly called for the removal of income tax on workers and the creation of a genuine welfare state with social programmes designed to lift people out of poverty.”
Lewis was particularly critical of what he sees as a disconnect between Guyana’s oil production achievements and the conditions facing many citizens.
“Guyana has been producing oil for seven years. We boast about producing one million barrels of oil per day. We have a population of approximately 800,000 people, yet workers still cannot secure a decent wage.“
Invoking the late President and PPP founder Dr. Cheddi Jagan’s famous description of Guyana as a “donkey-cart economy,” Lewis argued that many citizens continue to experience hardships inconsistent with the country’s newfound petroleum wealth.
“What we are witnessing is an attempt to create a Cadillac lifestyle on the backs of people who continue to live in what Cheddi Jagan described as a donkey-cart economy. While Guyana’s economic statistics may have changed, the reality confronting many citizens has not.”
He painted a vivid picture of that reality.
“Too many people still live hand to mouth. Many cannot afford basic necessities. Some cannot afford a tennis roll and can only eat if given credit. Some cannot afford a loaf of bread and must purchase a few slices at a time.“
Against that backdrop, Lewis questioned the message being sent by efforts to expand benefits for former presidents.
“It says that while ordinary citizens struggle, those occupying the highest offices are ensuring their own comfort and security. It says that while healthcare remains inadequate for many Guyanese, former presidents must enjoy unlimited medical benefits and access to the best health care system in the world. It says that while citizens struggle to pay utility bills, former presidents must have theirs paid indefinitely by taxpayers.“
However, Lewis reserved some of his sharpest criticism for the parliamentary opposition.
While condemning the Government’s actions, he argued that opposition parties have failed to effectively organise around common principles and provide the level of leadership required at a critical point in Guyana’s development.
“Our leaders are failing us. And that brings me to the Opposition,” he wrote.
“The opposition continues to prevaricate on the issue of unity. They continue to find reasons why they cannot come together.”
According to Lewis, opposition parties should be guided by Article 13 of the Constitution, which speaks to “inclusionary democracy,” and should work collectively to advance legislation and policies that better represent the interests of citizens.
“The Constitution, in Article 13, speaks to ‘inclusionary democracy.’ That principle must undergird the quest for unity. That is what the opposition should be fighting for.”
His comments come as opposition forces continue to grapple with questions of leadership, coalition building and political cooperation.
Lewis warned that unless both government and opposition change course, Guyana risks repeating a familiar pattern in which national wealth benefits a small political elite while ordinary citizens are left behind.
“If we continue on this path of division, finding reasons not to unite around common principles and disregarding the oath to serve the people, the one million barrels of oil we pump every day will benefit everyone except the ordinary people of this country. We will not even receive the crumbs.“
Lewis ended with a warning that Guyana stands at a crossroads. Never before has the country possessed such immense financial resources, yet many citizens remain trapped in poverty, burdened by rising living costs and uncertain about whether the benefits of the oil boom will ever meaningfully reach them.
“This nation is being plundered before our eyes while elected representatives prevaricate over who should lead, who should be elevated and who should be attacked,” Lewis wrote.
His intervention goes beyond a dispute over presidential benefits. At its core is a larger question about the direction of the country and the purpose of political power. While billions of U.S. dollars have flowed into Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund since oil production began in 2019, Lewis argues that too much of the national conversation remains focused on preserving privilege rather than improving lives.
The former presidents’ benefits debate has therefore become a symbol of a deeper concern: whether Guyana’s unprecedented wealth will be used to build a society in which workers, pensioners and struggling families share in the nation’s prosperity, or whether political elites will continue to insulate themselves from the hardships confronting ordinary citizens.
Lewis contends that the issue is not simply about pensions, vehicles, staff or medical benefits. It is about the example being set by those entrusted with public office and whether governance is being guided by service to the people or by the pursuit of personal comfort after leaving office.
In his view, unless political leaders begin placing the welfare of citizens above privilege and partisan calculations, the promise of the oil era will remain unfulfilled. The danger, he suggests, is that Guyana could emerge as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies while large sections of its population continue to struggle for basic economic security—a contradiction that no amount of oil wealth can disguise.
