MINISTER of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall ‘nailed’ Alliance For Change (AFC) executive member, Moses Nagamootoo yesterday in the National Assembly when he attempted to mislead the House during the debate on the Former Presidents (Benefit and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 piloted by former Finance Minister Carl Greenidge of  A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).Nagamotoo, in his presentation during the debate of the Bill, claimed that he was in opposition to the passage of legislation in 2009 providing for emoluments and benefits to former President Bharrat Jagdeo and had requested a division of votes in which he voted against it. However, Nandlall in his response strongly challenged Nagamootoo’s claim and produced the Hansard (Transcript of the sitting of the National Assembly)  of the April 30, 2009, which showed him voting for the 2009 legislation which sent the House, which was at the time in a boisterous mood, into a state of silence. At that time when he had voted, Nagamootoo was still a member of the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Nagamootoo was taken by surprise and could not explain why he ‘lied’ to the house. He was laughed at by both members of the government and opposition, even as he denied the details of the Hansard. Nandlall chastised the opposition for telling the electorate during the 2011 elections campaign that they will repeal the legislation which guarantees certain benefits to the former President, but which cannot be done. He told the House that the opposition will have to apologise to the electorate for misleading them on the issue, explaining that any future legislation cannot be retroactive and therefore cannot affect the benefits of the former or current Presidents  because, according to the Constitution of Guyana, they will enjoy benefits, when they demit office, which were in existence at the time they acceded to office. Nandlall, in a scholarly presentation, quoted extensively from the Constitution of Guyana (Articles 142 and 144) and legal authorities from the Caribbean and the Commonwealth to support his contention that certain benefits for former Presidents are guaranteed. He said any attempt to change this “borders on lunacy” and will not be in accordance with the Constitution. Nandlall also noted that while the opposition was attempting to cap the benefits of former presidents based on affordability by the state, they were silent on the capping of benefits of the  Leader of the Opposition which are similar to that of the President. The Attorney -General argued that any former President should be treated with dignity, because during their tenure in office, they have to work extremely hard and beyond the call of duty and therefore cannot be compared to that of an ordinary worker.