Dear Editor,
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic Government’s attempt to repeal the legislation governing benefits for former Presidents should be viewed with grave concern by every Guyanese citizen. At a time when ordinary citizens are struggling with the rising cost of living and demanding greater accountability in public expenditure, the Government appears determined to expand privileges for former Heads of State at the expense of taxpayers.
The controversy surrounding former Presidents’ benefits did not begin today. It originated with the enactment of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act of 2009. While most Guyanese accepted that former Presidents should receive reasonable benefits and support in recognition of their service, many objected to provisions that appeared unlimited, uncapped, and capable of imposing significant and indefinite financial obligations upon the State.
Public concerns were so widespread that on August 2, 2012, the National Assembly debated a motion calling for a review of the legislation. Subsequently, Bill No. 29 of 2012, the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill, was introduced by then Opposition Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge to amend the 2009 Act. The Bill sought to address what were viewed as deficiencies in the principal Act by placing limits on benefits and ensuring greater accountability and fiscal responsibility. Parliamentary debates reveal concerns that the 2009 Act provided benefits that were difficult to quantify, potentially unlimited in scope, and disconnected from the State’s ability to finance them. (Parliament of Guyana)
Importantly, the combined APNU and AFC Opposition successfully secured the passage of the amendment legislation through the National Assembly. Yet, despite the expressed will of Parliament, the legislation did not receive presidential assent during the administration of former President Donald Ramotar. Consequently, the reforms approved by the elected representatives of the people were left in limbo.
This raises an important constitutional and democratic question; why was legislation duly passed by the National Assembly denied assent? Guyanese deserve a full explanation as to why parliamentary efforts to introduce transparency and restraint into the system were frustrated.
Following the change of government in 2015, the Coalition Administration took steps to address the issue and advance reforms aimed at ensuring that benefits afforded to former Presidents remained reasonable and justifiable. Whether one supported every provision or not, the underlying principle was clear: public office should not become a vehicle for lifelong, uncapped privileges funded by taxpayers.
Today, however, the PPP/C appears intent on reversing that approach. The question therefore arises, why is there now such urgency to repeal legislation that sought to establish limits and accountability? Why should current and future generations of Guyanese be saddled with ever-expanding obligations to fund lavish benefits for former Presidents?
The Government must explain the projected costs to the Treasury, the long-term liabilities involved, and why such expenditures should take precedence over pressing national priorities such as healthcare, education, public security, infrastructure, housing, and social services.
Former Presidents deserve respect and reasonable support. However, no public official should be placed above the principles of accountability, moderation, and prudent management of public resources. Public service should never be viewed as a pathway to unlimited benefits financed by taxpayers for decades after leaving office.
The issue before us is larger than any individual. It concerns the responsible use of public funds and the kind of governance we wish to leave for future generations. If the proposed 2026 legislation is passed, Guyanese taxpayers, both present and future, will bear the financial burden of funding benefits and facilities whose costs may continue to escalate over time.
I therefore urge Guyanese to pay close attention to this matter, demand transparency from their elected representatives, and make their voices heard. Democracy requires active participation. Silence today may result in obligations that our children and grandchildren will be forced to finance tomorrow.
Yours truly,
Annette Ferguson
