Dear Editor,
There appears to be a misunderstanding in the public discussion of the bill concerning benefits for former Presidents. The key legal point is straightforward: laws do not take effect retroactively unless expressly stated. Therefore, when the APNU Administration amended the law in 2015 to curtail benefits provided under the 2009 legislation, that change did not affect former President Bharrat Jagdeo, former President Donald Ramotar, or former Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. They remained entitled to the benefits under the 2009 law and, to this day, continue to enjoy them.
In practical terms, the 2015 amendment would have applied to persons leaving office after it was enacted, which means the former President who would have been adversely affected by that law was David Granger. It would be interesting for the public to now learn that Mr Granger is enjoying the same benefits as Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, Mr Donald Ramotar and Mr Samuel Hinds under the 2009 law, notwithstanding the 2015 amendment passed under his own Administration. That fact alone confirms that the practical treatment of former Presidents has already moved beyond the narrow confines of the APNU law, such that all former Presidents currently enjoy the same standard benefits, including the President who signed the 2015 law.
The present bill should therefore be understood for what it is: not the creation of any novel privilege, but an effort to align the law with the standard of dignity that former Presidents have in practice continued to receive under the 2009 framework. If even the former President whose own 2015 law would have adversely affected him is now enjoying the same benefits, then the sensible course is to make the law clear, consistent, and applicable to current and future Presidents alike.