Social commentator GHK Lall has challenged Guyana’s four living former presidents to publicly reject any benefits they may receive under the proposed Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill, arguing that the controversy presents them with an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the people they once led.
In an opinion piece published by Village Voice News, Lall welcomed the deferment of the controversial legislation, crediting Senior Minister with responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, for what he described as a moment of “sanity” in the handling of the Bill.
However, he cautioned that the deferment should be permanent, while turning his attention to former presidents Sam Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo, Donald Ramotar and David Granger.
Lall argued that, despite their political differences and individual records in office, he did not believe any of the four would have initiated or supported what he characterised as an excessively self-serving benefits arrangement at a time when ordinary Guyanese are struggling to meet their basic needs.
He wrote that none of the former presidents, in his assessment, would have contemplated such a proposal while citizens continue to face economic hardship.
A public challenge to former presidents
The central demand in Lall’s commentary is that each former president publicly declare that he has no interest in benefiting from the proposed legislation.
He called on Hinds, Jagdeo, Ramotar and Granger to make a simple but public statement:
“Not I. There is no interest, no wish, to be a beneficiary.”
Lall said such a declaration would carry considerable significance for Guyanese who feel abandoned by political leaders and are struggling with the cost of living.
He argued that a collective rejection of the proposed benefits would demonstrate that former presidents recognise the difficulties confronting ordinary citizens and are prepared to place the public interest above personal advantage.
The commentator said the four former heads of state have an opportunity to show that their concern for Guyana extends beyond their time in office and that they remain connected to the people who entrusted them with national leadership.
Deferment of the Bill welcomed
Lall’s commentary also acknowledged the decision to defer consideration of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill, which has attracted criticism from trade union representatives, opposition figures and members of the public.
The proposed legislation seeks to restore a framework of benefits for former presidents, including provisions covering household utilities, medical care, security, staff and transportation. The Government has maintained that the Bill restores the arrangements established under the 2009 legislation, while critics have raised concerns about the removal of restrictions introduced in 2015.
The legislation has become the focus of public protests, including a campaign by former parliamentarian Annette Ferguson calling for its withdrawal.
Lall described the deferment as encouraging but made clear that he wants the former presidents themselves to take a position rather than remain silent while the controversy continues.
‘An honourable hour’
In closing, Lall described the moment as an opportunity for the four former presidents to demonstrate their character and earn public respect by rejecting any personal benefit under the proposed arrangement.
“On rare occasions men of standing are provided with an opportunity to bare before the world what they are made of, who they really are deep inside. This is such a moment for Excellencies Hinds, Jagdeo, Ramotar, and Granger to prove themselves profound…”
He argued that turning away from the benefits proposal would allow the former presidents to stand alongside Guyanese who are facing economic hardship.
For Lall, the issue is no longer simply whether the legislation proceeds through Parliament. It is also whether those who once occupied the country’s highest office are willing to publicly demonstrate that their concern for the people outweighs any personal entitlement.
His challenge places the four former presidents under public pressure to state whether they would accept benefits under the proposed framework or voluntarily renounce them.
