KEVON FELMINE
Senior Reporter
kevon.felmine@guardian.co.tt
Two Independent Senators have backed Government’s controversial bid to apply a law retroactively to revoke a prime ministerial pension for Stuart Young, who held office for just 30 days.
Michael Simon de la Bastide, SC, and Courtney Mc Nish spoke in support of the Prime Minister’s Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which would disqualify former prime ministers from receiving pensions if they served less than one year and demitted office after March 10.
Young became prime minister on March 17, 2025, and served until April 28, when the People’s National Movement lost the General Election. Under the current law, he qualifies for a pension of $87,000 a month.
Debating the bill in the Senate, de la Bastide found it commendable that Government brought the measure now, and supported the proposed tiered system.
He explained that the current Act entitles any former prime minister to the full pension without regard to their time in office, something he described as unfair and undeserved in the eyes of “most right-minded people.”
The bill’s retrospective clause, which has drawn legal scrutiny, would revoke the pension of any prime minister who served for less than a year after March 10, 2025. This affects only Young.
“There is only one person, as we know as of today, who has left the Office of the Prime Minister since March 10. There is no doubt in my mind that the Act has the effect of depriving him of property and without compensation. I think, in my view, without due process of law, and that would impinge on his right under Section 4A of the Constitution—of that fundamental human right,” de la Bastide said.
However, de la Bastide argued that the law would not violate the Constitution.
He acknowledged Senator Anthony Viera’s concerns about the rule of law but disagreed that the retrospective nature violates it. While retrospective laws often stir legal and ethical questions, they are not inherently unconstitutional. De la Bastide said Parliament has the power to act and correct the mistake that allowed a full pension for such brief service.
Mc Nish, who spoke earlier in the debate, said the country is watching how Parliament handles the matter. He shared that people he considered friends had called him in disbelief yesterday as he prepared for the debate.
“One tried to disguise his voice, saying to me, ‘Courtney, you cannot let the man get a million dollars a year for 30 days’ service.’ Another person called with the same expression.”
He suggested the issue might have been avoided had Young simply declined the pension.
“If he had said that, we would not be here today. It is not my business to say what he should do, but by him not doing that, we are now caught in a discussion of what is fair and what is the law.”
Mc Nish said retrospective laws are not always unconstitutional and can be justified in the public interest. He admitted governments had overlooked this legal gap for 56 years but believed now was the time to act.
Govt bench mounts defence
With former prime minister Dr Keith Rowley’s 47 per cent salary increase still haunting the People’s National Movement (PNM), Labour Minister Leroy Baptiste defended the Prime Minister’s Pensions (Amendment) Bill 2025 as a step toward fairness for the working class.
Baptiste said the last PNM administration found “creative” ways to improve pension benefits for prime ministers while ignoring decades-long pleas from workers in the public service.
“I have seen what has happened, we all have eyes, using the SRC, what happened with the Prime Minister’s pension. They got a nice bounce to the ounce,” Baptiste said.
Contrasting Rowley’s final pay bump with the plight of a former Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) hospitality worker, Baptiste read from a WhatsApp message the retired employee had sent him. The individual, now recovering from a stroke, received no pension after 18 years of service.
The former Public Services Association president said many workers at WASA and the Housing Development Corporation had served for over a decade yet were not eligible for pensions at age 60. Daily-rated employees in central government, he added, have waited since 1994 for a promised pension plan.
“Somehow, we are comfortable saying one day equals $1 million for the rest of your life, every year. When we treat with the average worker, collectively thousands under the central government, they are simply not entitled to a pension.”
He said the bill would not disadvantage anyone and rejected claims that it unfairly targeted any individual.
“No one could justify a fleeting six weeks equal a million dollars a year. That simply cannot be justified—not to the taxpayers of this country.”
Baptiste cited pension rules for heads of government in several other nations like Australia, South Africa and Singapore.
“These national examples affirm the principles we are establishing here today: pensions must be earned, not gifted,” Baptiste said.
Making his inaugural contribution as Leader of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Darrell Allahar said the amendment was not politically motivated.
“In the absence of any evidence of any statements coming from the Government side of malice, or some sort of Government political motive, those statements show unfortunately a predisposition against the UNC Government, and I am very, very disappointed.”
Allahar said the retrospective clause in the bill, while contentious, is not “ad hominem” in the legal sense. He maintained that Parliament has the legal authority to enact retroactive laws, even those affecting fundamental rights, so long as there is no evidence of malice.