Dear Editor,
I suspect many Guyanese will hear about the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2026, see the political arguments surrounding it, and dismiss it as another disagreement between government and opposition. But I think this legislation deserves considerably more public scrutiny than it is receiving.
This is not simply a matter of whether former presidents deserve certain benefits after leaving office. It is about the extent of those benefits, the financial obligations being imposed on taxpayers, the accountability mechanisms governing their use, and the precedent Parliament is being asked to establish.
Let us examine what the Bill actually proposes.
1. The removal of financial limits
Under the 2015 legislation, there were specific limits on several benefits provided to former presidents. For example, water, electricity and telephone expenses were each capped at $25,000 monthly. Household staff were limited to three persons, clerical and technical staff to three, medical expenses to $200,000 annually, and personal security to two persons. State-provided vehicles were limited to two.
The proposed 2026 legislation is basically a resurrection of the 2009 framework, removing the express statutory ceilings.
What does this mean for taxpayers?
It means that the legislation would no longer provide those same specific financial and numerical boundaries. The State could potentially assume considerably greater expenditure on utilities, staffing, medical care, security and transportation.
The question is simple: Why should the Government create potentially open-ended financial obligations without establishing reasonable statutory limits?
Taxpayer dollars should not be subject to unlimited expenditure simply because the beneficiaries once occupied the highest political office in the country.
2. Removal of restrictions relating to private business and employment.
Under the 2015 legislation, a former president would cease to qualify for the benefits if they engaged in private business, trade or paid employment.
The proposed Bill removes that restriction.
This means a former president could potentially own businesses, a luxury farm with swimming pool, engage in commercial activities, earn private income and still enjoy extensive taxpayer-funded benefits. Think about the implications.
What happens when a former president’s residence is also connected to a commercial enterprise? Who determines which utility expenses are personal and which are commercial? Could publicly funded household employees perform duties that indirectly benefit a private business? These are legitimate questions of public accountability.
There must be a clear separation between the public resources provided to support former presidents and the private commercial interests from which they may personally benefit.
Why should taxpayers potentially subsidise the private circumstances of individuals who are financially capable of maintaining those circumstances themselves?
3. Removing the disqualification relating to criminal convictions
The 2015 legislation also provided that a former president would cease to qualify for the benefits if convicted of a criminal offence carrying a term of imprisonment. That provision is being removed. Consider the principle involved.
Should someone who has occupied the highest constitutional office continue receiving extensive taxpayer-funded privileges without any provision for reviewing those entitlements following a serious criminal conviction? My take on this is simple, only a criminal government would want such a provision in place. Our constitution bars a convicted criminal from contesting political office and here we have a government about to implement provisions to allow a potential convicted president to continue to benefit from uncapped taxpayers funding.
This is not about denying anyone their constitutional rights it is about whether public privileges should be entirely disconnected from subsequent accountability.
Parliament should consider reasonable safeguards that allow for the review of benefits in appropriate circumstances, with due process and consideration for legitimate security and humanitarian needs.
4. The restoration of presidential tax exemptions
The proposed legislation also restores tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving president. This deserves considerably more scrutiny.
What exactly does that exemption cover? What is its financial value? Does it apply to personal income, purchases, imported goods or other transactions? How will it interact with income earned through private commercial activities?
The Bill should clearly define the scope of tax exemptions so that there is no ambiguity about the extent of the privilege being granted.
At a time when ordinary citizens and businesses are expected to meet their tax obligations, the Government should be able to explain why former presidents should enjoy continuing tax privileges and what public purpose justifies them.
5. Lifetime benefits without a clear connection to continuing public duties.
The Government argues that former presidents continue to have representational responsibilities and security considerations after leaving office. That argument has merit as former presidents may face genuine security risks, and some may continue performing official functions on behalf of the State.
But there is a fundamental difference between providing resources for legitimate public responsibilities and underwriting someone’s personal lifestyle for the remainder of their life.
Security arrangements can be justified by an independent assessment of risk. Administrative assistance can be justified by official responsibilities. Transportation can be justified by state assignments. But why should these considerations automatically justify extensive lifetime household benefits, unrestricted utility payments and tax privileges?
Respecting the institution of the presidency should not mean creating an unlimited personal entitlement for everyone who has occupied the office.
6. Where is the independent accountability?
This is perhaps one of the most important questions in the entire debate. Who determines whether the expenditure on a former president’s utilities is reasonable? Who determines how many household employees are necessary? Who verifies that those employees are performing legitimate duties? Who monitors the use of state-provided vehicles?
What mechanisms ensure that public resources are not being used for personal or commercial purposes unrelated to the former president’s official status?
The Bill should establish clear monitoring, reporting and independent auditing requirements. It is not enough to just create entitlements, there must also be mechanisms to ensure that those entitlements are administered responsibly.
A system that depends primarily on the discretion and goodwill of those administering it is not a substitute for proper legislative safeguards.
7. The cumulative financial burden on taxpayers.
This is where the issue becomes particularly important. Former presidents already qualify for substantial pension arrangements. The proposed legislation would provide an additional package of lifetime benefits, including utilities, household staff, medical treatment, security, vehicles, transportation, annual vacation allowances and tax privileges. Yet where is the comprehensive public financial assessment showing what this will cost taxpayers? What is the estimated cost annually for each former president? What happens when the number of former presidents increases? What will the cumulative expenditure look like over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? What is the estimated value of the tax revenue the State will forgo?
These are not unreasonable questions, they are basic questions of fiscal accountability.
Guyana’s oil wealth should not become an excuse for abandoning prudence in the management of public resources.
8. The broader democratic and philosophical concern.
The Government’s principal justification is that all former presidents should receive equal treatment and that the Bill restores the framework established in 2009. But I think there is an important distinction that Guyanese should understand.
Equality among former presidents does not automatically establish that the benefits being provided are equitable in relation to the wider population. The question is not whether former presidents should be treated with dignity. Of course they should.
The question is whether that dignity requires taxpayers to finance potentially uncapped lifetime benefits, regardless of the former president’s private wealth, commercial activities or financial circumstances.
Ordinary citizens must pay their own utility bills, maintain their own vehicles, finance their own household expenses and meet their tax obligations. Why should the State create a framework in which former presidents enjoy extensive financial protections without clearly demonstrating why each entitlement is necessary and proportionate?
Special arrangements may be justified by the responsibilities and security risks associated with the presidency. But special arrangements must also be accompanied by special accountability.
Every guyanese should be concerned about this bill being passed as is, because legislation is not simply about what a government intends to do today. It is also about the powers, privileges and financial obligations it creates for tomorrow.
We must be careful not to assess legislation solely by the personalities who may benefit from it today. Laws can remain in place beyond individual political administrations. The same provisions will apply to future presidents, regardless of which political party they represent. That is precisely why we should be examining the principles and safeguards being established rather than allowing party loyalty to determine our position.
If the Government believes former presidents deserve these benefits, it should have no difficulty explaining the financial implications, establishing reasonable limits, providing independent oversight and demonstrating that the benefits are proportionate to legitimate public responsibilities and if the argument is that these benefits are necessary to preserve the dignity of the presidency, then surely that dignity should not be dependent on an arrangement that places potentially open-ended financial obligations on taxpayers.
I am not arguing that former presidents should be stripped of reasonable benefits. I am arguing that public resources must be protected by clear rules, accountability and transparency. There is a difference between respecting public office and creating lifelong privileges that are insufficiently constrained by law.
We should not have to wait until public money is misused before demanding safeguards.
Good legislation anticipates the possibility of misuse and puts protections in place before the law is passed, that is what responsible governance looks like and that is why this Bill deserves serious public condemnation.
Yours faithfully,
Clayon F. Halley
Discussion