.jpg)
THE former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act survived its first real test when Executive member of A Partnership for National Unity) (APNU) Desmond Trotman failed to persuade the High Court to rule it unconstitutional, null and void. Trotman, through his Attorney-at-law, Mr. Christopher Ram failed also to have a Conservatory Order issued to preserve the status ante – the situation that existed prior to the date when the act came into force …until the determination of the hearing.
Trotman, in his statement of Claim, pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides : “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension, or upon the expiration of his term of office , such gratuity, as may be prescribed by Parliament .
Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the President shall be entitled to certain benefits.
The benefits include payment in respect of expenses incurred in the provision and use of water, electricity and telephone services at the place of residence in Guyana; services of personal and household staff, including an attendant and a gardener ; services of electrical and technical staff, if required , free medical attendance or treatment of himself and the dependent members of the family , full time personal security and services of the Presidential Guard Service at their place of residence ; the provision of motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State; toll free road transportation in Guyana , an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same basis as that granted to serving members of the Judiciary , and a tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving President.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however, has determined that the former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities in which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the Court that the plaintiff applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities)
Act.
“Indeed Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities and sections 2 and 3 of the former Presidents (Benefits and other facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom Section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The Court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory Order as prayed for by the plaintiff applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.” Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a Conservatory Order.
Trotman, in his statement of Claim, pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides : “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension, or upon the expiration of his term of office , such gratuity, as may be prescribed by Parliament .
Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the President shall be entitled to certain benefits.
The benefits include payment in respect of expenses incurred in the provision and use of water, electricity and telephone services at the place of residence in Guyana; services of personal and household staff, including an attendant and a gardener ; services of electrical and technical staff, if required , free medical attendance or treatment of himself and the dependent members of the family , full time personal security and services of the Presidential Guard Service at their place of residence ; the provision of motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State; toll free road transportation in Guyana , an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same basis as that granted to serving members of the Judiciary , and a tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving President.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however, has determined that the former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities in which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the Court that the plaintiff applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities)
Act.
“Indeed Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities and sections 2 and 3 of the former Presidents (Benefits and other facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom Section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The Court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory Order as prayed for by the plaintiff applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.” Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a Conservatory Order.
