A bill, seeking to make special provisions for pension payments to former first lady Joyce Hoyte, was passed unanimously on Thursday evening, even as the opposition parties argued that the bill was unnecessary since provisions are already in existence under an existing act.
The bill was passed after the National Assembly resolved itself into committee to consider the bill clause by clause.
Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, while introducing the second reading of the bill, described it as a “simple bill” which had its genesis in the Pensions (President) Bill of 2004 and just sought to bring clarity.
The minister said that this bill sought to remove any “uncertainty” and “any doubt” as it related to the pension payable to the widow of former president Desmond Hoyte. Singh stated that the government intends to ensure that the widow receives her pension immediately upon its passage.
Singh emphasised that this was an issue that was important to the government and stated that President Bharrat Jagdeo had been one of the proponents of this bill.
The bill stated that the widow of the late President Hoyte shall be entitled to receive an enhanced pension calculated with Section 3 of the Pensions (President) Act 2004 from the date when the widow’s pension first became payable. The bill is retroactive to 22 December, 2002.
PNCR-1G MP Winston Murray said that there was no need for the new bill since the 2004 act already dealt with the formula under which the former first lady could benefit. He suggested that this bill was an attempt by the ruling party to get some form of mileage but nevertheless expressed his support for what the bill was attempting to accomplish.
Murray said the existing act was very clear and stated that since former president Desmond Hoyte never received his pension between 1992 and 2002 (the period when he demitted office until his death), the pension should have been paid to his estate.
During Murray’s presentation, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds told Murray that Mrs Hoyte will be paid her pension. Murray retorted that act was not necessary and that the pension should have been paid a long time ago and called on the Prime Minister to issue an apology which he said would be accepted.
Murray also challenged the name of the bill which is “President Hoyte Pensions Bill 2009”, which he described as a “misnomer of enormous proportions”, since the former president had no connection with this bill.
PPP/C MP Gail Teixeira emphasised that the current law was one that sought to clarify any ambiguities in the existing law. She said it related to the late president Hoyte, as a problematic issue arose because the former president was receiving a salary as leader of the opposition and it was unclear whether he should be entitled to a pension as former president as well.
PPP/C MP Odinga Lumumba, in a brief presentation, chided the PNCR-1G and said that Mrs Hoyte’s pension only became an issue when Rickford Burke chose to highlight it recently. He said that previously the PNCR-1G did not even try to safeguard the interests of Mrs Viola Burnham, the wife of its founder leader Forbes Burnham, as it related to acres of land that she owned. He said that at one time, he had been appointed to look after the interests of Mrs Burnham by the then Minister of Housing, Henry Jeffrey.
Opposition Leader Robert Corbin contested this statement and that these negotiations started during the PNC’s reign in Office and were only concluded after Mrs Burnham’s death, during which he (Corbin) played an active role.
AFC Leader Raphael Trotman during his presentation echoed much of what Murray said. Trotman, while indicating his party’s support of the bill, stated that it was “wholly unnecessary” since provision for the pension payments to Mrs Hoyte had been adequately made in the existing Pensions (President) Bill of 2004.
He said that it was a shame that the personal business of the former first lady had become such a public affair. According to him, he has been in recent contact with Mrs Hoyte and was appalled as to how she was being treated, giving the example that her current security arrangements were in shambles. He, however, expressed his pleasure that the former first lady would finally receive what was rightfully hers.
Singh, while seeking to have the bill read for a third time, told the House that the current bill is only seeking to clarify what to some may be an uncertainty in the law. He emphasised that the government’s position was very clear and that its members wanted Mrs Hoyte to receive her pension. He added that it was government’s concern that all former presidents and their families were well taken care of, after they would have demitted office.
