Previous Member of Parliament for Tamale Central, Inusah Fuseini, says there is no such thing as ex-gratia in the constitution of Ghana.
As indicated by him, what is frequently alluded to as ex-gratia by the overall population is the retirement benefits Members of Parliament and other Article 71 officeholders are qualified for subsequent to serving their term of office.
Talking on JoyNews' PM Express, he contended that requires the rejecting of the retirement advantages of Article 71 officeholders are lost because of the way that MPs and other Article 71 officeholders are provisional laborers and as such should accept their retirement benefits toward the finish of their residency.
"There's no ex-gratia, there's nothing similar to ex-gratia. Ex-gratia is a vocabulary taken from the customary individuals and put on the installments to Members of Parliament. There's no ex-gratia in the constitution. The constitution says they ought to pay you retirement benefits. He noticed that the retirement advantage ought not be mistaken for the Pension plot Members of Parliament add to.
He made sense of that while the Pension conspire chips away at intergenerational value, the retirement benefit is determined based on one's compensation.
The training he says is normal across the world. "No on the grounds that you're a provisional laborer. You're laboring for quite a long time and toward the finish of the four years you're no more. So your retirement advantages will be determined based on your compensation.
"This isn't true, the rule is very unique. With the best regard, it's from one side of the planet to the other. In Britain it's called tip, as a matter of fact. Indeed, even the court in Apasera called it tip.
"Tip implies you're working, you're being paid compensation and when your agreement closes they pay you a level of your compensation as tip," he made sense of. He, in any case, conceded that said tip just advantages public laborers at the exclusive class of government.
"I concur there some sort of scheme and that is the thing is summoning the resentment of individuals that you can't unite a class of individuals and treat them in an unexpected way. So when his Excellency John Mahama was in power, I recollect this matter came out genuinely, conspicuously, and he felt that board of trustees [Presidential Emoluments Committee] ought to be a standing council.
"What's more, it ought not be at the case of a sitting President. What's more, any time there's another parliament, you don't have to change the individuals except if you supplant some who are dead or who can't perform then they take choices," he said.
blogpay
