All that will be Revised by the New Govt

Sam is entitled to his NIS...

Burnham created the NIS for this Purpose....

Ask Terry....

Like the Cane Cutters who are getting problems

collecting their Benefits from NIS....

this will have to be Fixed

Chief.  This is a most distracting post.  The man is on his way out, why are you hunting him down.

FOCUS on Raumtar the LAMUTAR.

A quick perusal of the relevant Acts seems to indicate he is indeed entitled to the Presidential pension and the facilities afforded to all Former Presidents.

He did accede to the Presidency in the substantive sense in 1997 though he wasn't elected.

The two Acts in question place no minimum requirement of presidential service or even prime ministerial service for entitlement to the full pension. These are terribly written laws.

Hold yuh Horses.....This is not Distracting...

A Top PPP Diplomat (The Most Senior)

Recently chuck in de Job....

and He getting the Run Around

to get any Pension or Benefits...

From Ramotar & Jagdeo

Hope the tax payers in Guyana take note.

The Office of Ambassador is clearly provided for in the Pensions (President, Parliamentary, and Special Offices) Act.

He could just sue the Government as he is entitled by statute to a pension.

I would even go so far as to say that 1 single day of service as substantive (elected or acceded) President entitles you to the full pension. And I'm assuming that Acting President is excluded by only common sense and custom because the Acts don't even include language to expressly bar them.

Same for Prime Minister.

This is just deliberately badly drafted. No one could ever draft such terrible Acts in error.

After May 11th the tax payers has a lot of pension to finance.

Also lets not forget " From Pension to Mansion"

Chief if you were the New President (I mean of the Alliance) what will you do with all those New Pensioners. 

The answer is nothing just like the Alliance will do. Pension rights cannot be stripped ex post facto as per the Constitution.

Jalil,

As Shaitaan pointed out pensions cannot be stripped willy nilly.

I think this has to pass through Parliament.

One can diminish or even do away altogether with pensions and facilities for future former Presidents by an Act of Parliament.

However, it is not possible for any Bill to have retroactive effect on Jagdeo, Hinds, and Ramotar. They're pretty solid for all time to come.

The only theoretical way to strip Jagdeo, Hinds, and/or Ramotar is by amendment to the Constitution in the hardest way possible. Such a bill cannot even be passed unanimously by Parliament alone but also requires a successful vote at referendum because it alters a fundamental right. So for all intents and purposes, there is no practical legal avenue to undo what's been done by any future Government of Guyana.

How about if they get convicted for misappropriation of funds and thrown in jail...

I would love to give you even the hint of a satisfactory answer my friend but alas the Constitution and two Acts are clear. There is no such possibility.

Even if that were possible, there is still the issue of the President's lifetime legal immunity for any and all acts done during his tenure as President. The courts are even barred from even entertaining such a case.

Currently NY State is about to legislate a law  that convicted legislators should be stripped of their  pension.

Sam Hinds deserves any kind of pension for doing nothing.

He said that the PPP always keeps their promises.(smile)

If Jagdeo become un-retired and serve as Prime Minister then retires again. Does he get the Presidential scale or the Prime Minister one. Or both?  

NO!

Technically he was already substantive Prime Minister for like 2 days which of course according to Guyanese law makes him eligible to the Prime Minister's pension. But of course you are only entitled to 1 pension.

The law assumes that one draws the pension of the highest rank of the pensionable state offices.

However, you are not entitled to both pension and the salary of the same office at the same time. One can serve again in the same office and receive the "excess" differential if your pension rights entitle to some higher "excess" amount.

The law has some hint of sense in one single respect. It technically bars double dipping. Ironically American law in NY specifically allows double dipping.