Recently, a Panel Discussion on CVM LIVE shed light on the parliamentary drama surrounding the tabling of amendments to the Pensions Act, specifically focusing on the increase in retirement age for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Auditor General. The central question raised during the discussion was whether this move was a rationalization of a public office anomaly or merely a political maneuver.
The amendment proposes extending the retirement age for the Director of Public Prosecutions from 60 to 65, aligning it with the upper limits observed in the public service. However, members of the People’s National Party (PNP) strongly oppose this change. Despite their resistance, the legislation was passed through the lower house without their support. The PNP has hinted at the possibility of mounting a constitutional challenge against the amendment. Their main contention lies in the lack of consultation before making this significant change, a convention that King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie believes lacks clear definition.
Attorney at Law Michael Williams presented another perspective on the matter, questioning whether the constitutional amendments should apply retroactively to the incumbent Director of Public Prosecutions. This particular concern adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate. Watch the report:
Watch more Major Stories
