Gov’t debunks opposition’s motion to review former president’s pension and benefits
Georgetown, GINA, August 3, 2012 -- Source
Frivolous and vexatious, a controversy manufactured by the opposition for political mileage and unconstitutional are some of the words used by government Members of Parliament (MPs) to describe the opposition’s motion titled ‘Former Presidents’ Pensions and Benefits which was moved yesterday in the National Assembly by the Opposition.
The joint parliamentary opposition used their one seat majority, to send the motion to a Select Committee for review, after a heated and lengthy debate.
Inappropriate
Addressing the legality of the motion, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the mechanism by way of a motion seeking the review of a Bill is inappropriate, and cannot be done, but rather the process of bringing a Bill to amend the law which already exists should be followed.
“A motion is moved for different purposes; none of them has ever been to remit a legislation to a Select Committee to be reviewed …it was disclosed only recently that it costs this parliament $1.7M of taxpayers’ money to sit every session, therefore we must be careful and cautious in the manner in which we use taxpayers’ money… we are going to send this to select committee, then in the committee make recommendations which will have to come back for adoption by the House, after which a draft bill will have to be crafted and laid in the National Assembly for debate all over again then for passage- that is a waste of time,” Minister Nandlall emphasised.
He argued that the same objective could be obtained and achieved, if the opposition could have worked together and crafted a Bill which will capture their concerns so that parliament would not have to be burdened to bear the expenditure of that consultation that they ought to have, themselves, come up with, then put it before the National Assembly for its approval or disapproval.
Two-thirds majority
The Legal Affairs Minister asserted that a Bill that seeks to deal with pensions is one that would have to enjoy a 2/3 majority.
“Article 142 protects property from arbitrary seizures…property is not confined to immovable property alone but it also relates to money and pensions and that is protected as a fundamental right…Article 149 (b) speaks also to and the side note is right to pension and gratuity…which was put into our constitution as a result of the constitutional reform process,” the Attorney General explained.
He added that in this instance, a motion is being put to be sent to a Select Committee, to review the change of a law which is protected by the fundamental rights provision of Guyana’s constitution.
“Article 222 speaks to the remuneration of holders of certain offices and amongst the persons listed as persons to which this article applies, includes Office of the President, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly, any Supreme Court Judge, members of the Elections Commission, Public Service Commission...offices which are given security in the constitution regarding the removal as well as security of tenure in relation to their remuneration packages,” Minister Nandlall said.
He asserted that the motion moved by APNU MP Carl Greenidge is one that seeks to take parliament down a road of unconstitutionality, which is the ultimate result that will flow from the motion.
APNU’s MP Rupert Roopnarine said that he does not believe that the motion filed is trespassing on the business of the judiciary in relation to review of legislation, while AFC’s Khemraj Ramjattan argued that the motion that exists can lead to the process of review, moreso any member can bring a motion and the motion is asking for the Bill to be taken to a select committee.
Opposition misrepresentation
Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh argued that the issue of former presidents’ benefits and pensions became as contentious as it is because of deliberate mis-representation by the Opposition.
The Finance Minister asserted that the former presidents’ benefits and others Act of 2009 was not a stand alone piece of legislation, but rather an installment to a family of legislation which was brought over the period 2009-2010 with a very clear intention- which was to place into statute the right into the statute books benefits and facilities which were previously being provided on a discretionary basis solely and purely by administrative fiat.
“If the truth is to be told, this administration should have been commended for bringing these pieces of legislation and for writing into law benefits and facilities that were previously being provided, purely by discretionary administrative fiat and to bring certainty and predictability, to remove unpredictability, to eliminate the opportunity for capricious removal of benefits, to introduce some degree of certainty as to the expectations that could be had by the holders of these offices,” the Finance Minister explained.
He said what has been witnessed during the debate thus far can best be described as a brazen attempt by selected members of the opposition to manufacture a controversy and to deliberately spin the facts to create a misleading impression, solely for the purpose of political opportunism.
Mover of the motion, APNU’s Carl Greenidge said that the idea behind the moving the motion is to put caps on every item slated in the Act for the former president to enjoy.
The motion seeks to have the Former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities Act 2009 repealed without prejudice; a parliamentary committee to be convened to examine the Pensions ( President, Parliamentary and Special Offices ) Act, part II section 4 ( Rate of President and calculation of pension 7/8 ceiling of pension) and to make proposals for their revision and that a revised superannuation package be sent by the Special Parliamentary Committee for consideration and approval by the National Assembly.
