Executive Member of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Desmond Trotman, failed to persuade the High Court to rule the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and other Facilities) Act unconstitutional, null and void.
Trotman, through his Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, failed also to have a Conservatory Order issued to preserve the status ante –the situation that existed prior to the date when the Act came into force– until the determination of the hearing.
Trotman in his Statement of Claim pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides: “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension or, upon the expiration of his term of office, such gratuity as may he prescribed by Parliament. Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.”
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the president shall be entitled to certain benefits.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however has determined that the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities to which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the court that the plaintiff-applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act.
“Indeed, Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities, and sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory order as prayed for by the plaintiff-applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.”
Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a conservatory order.
Trotman, through his Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, failed also to have a Conservatory Order issued to preserve the status ante –the situation that existed prior to the date when the Act came into force– until the determination of the hearing.
Trotman in his Statement of Claim pointed to Article 181 (2) which provides: “A person who has held the office of President shall receive such pension or, upon the expiration of his term of office, such gratuity as may he prescribed by Parliament. Any such pension and gratuity shall be a charge of the Consolidated Fund.”
He further drew reference to the legislation in question which dictates that a person having held the office of the president shall be entitled to certain benefits.
Chief Justice Ian Chang, in his ruling, however has determined that the Former Presidents’ (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act reveals that the benefits have nothing to do with pensions and gratuities to which Article 181 (2) of the Constitution speaks.
“It therefore appears to the court that the plaintiff-applicant is unlikely to be in a position to rebut the presumption of Constitutionality which applies to Sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act.
“Indeed, Article 181 (2) speaks to pensions and gratuities, and sections 2 and 3 of the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act speaks of benefits and facilities which are outside of the embrace of pensions and gratuities.”
Chang further found that a Conservatory Order is likely to adversely affect the benefits and facilities of any former President to whom section 2 and 3 of the Act applies.
“The court cannot make a Conservatory Order which would adversely affect the interest of any such former President unless such former President is afforded an opportunity of being heard.
“Indeed, a final declaratory order as prayed for by the plaintiff-applicant would adversely affect the interest of such former President. Any such former President should therefore have been joined as a defendant in the proceedings as an interested party. This was not done.”
Chang further ruled that the circumstances surrounding the request by Trotman are not consistent with an application for such a conservatory order.
when Hoyte was President what about his pension what he was given and his clothes allowance plus government had to pay all his bills
ReplyDelete