Dear Editor,
I have followed the discussion in the press between Messrs Christopher Ram and Jerome Khan on the question of the tax liability of the President of Guyana, particularly as it relates to taxation on real estate transactions.
From his reading of a single statute, Mr Khan appears to have concluded that the President is not liable to taxation at all, while Mr. Ram seems to be contending, based on a wider examination of all the tax laws, that the President is taxable on the income he derives from trade or business. This is a useful discussion and there ought to be more on these subjects. Very often the letter writers keep repeating all the old and worn arguments about race and ethnicity, adding nothing to the subject. But the discussion on the tax exempt status of the president was useful for another reason: It brings into sharp focus how easy it is for the National Assembly whose majority is hand-picked from some ‘party list’ to make laws placing the ‘picker’ above the law.
This ought to change. Guyana opted for a republican form of government long ago and rejected the monarchical system where the king was above the law and could do no wrong. We all know that the president of the USA is liable to tax, and his tax returns are made public. The kings of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, etc, do not pay taxes. After all, they rule by divine order and their states are monarchical, not republican.
The Constitution of Guyana also places our President above the law by the grant of immunities and this also ought to change. Many other things need to change in the Republic. A quick reference to the Constitution of Guyana on the question of the President’s salary and allowances reveals from Article 181(1) that the President is entitled to receive such salary and allowances as may be prescribed under provisions of Article 222. Nowhere is tax free salary stated. Article 222 states that the salary and allowances of the holders of certain offices, including inter alia, the President, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Supreme Court Judges, the DPP, Auditor General and Ombudsman (not approved yet) and the Commissioner of Police may be prescribed by or under law.
The President is grouped together with these other office-holders and since only salaries and allowances are to be prescribed, and since all of the others pay taxes, it appears that the constitution did not have in mind any tax free status for any of them, including the President.
Article 181 (2) provides for the President to receive a pension or, upon the expiration of his term of office, a gratuity as prescribed by Parliament and for this to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The President can only receive a pension or a gratuity – nothing else – upon the expiration of his term. That is why this recent legislation, Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Act 2009, which provides for the payment of the personal and household staff including attendant and gardener, technical and clerical staff, unspecified number of vehicles provided and maintained by the state, first class return airfares, etc, all appear clearly to be in violation of Article 182.
But the bigger question is whether 31 years after the 980 Burnham constitution we want to preserve all the lawlessness enshrined therein. This whole business of someone being placed above the law like the King of Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, is inappropriate and inconsistent with republican status.
Now that the presidential candidates are being selected for elections 2011, this is a good time to put each of them to a test and request of them a firm and irreversible commitment to abolish the executive presidency which lays the foundation for dictatorship and arbitrariness in public office, to abolish the immunities of the President as set out in Articles 182, to repeal the Benefits Act referred to above, to observe faithfully the constitutional provisions for power sharing and revenue sharing between the central, regional/local levels of government (Article 75-78) and to prohibit the President from engaging in business and real estate deals while in office.
The candidates should commit to paying taxes like everybody else, to immediately appoint an Ombudsman, the Procurement Commission and all other commissioners that need to be put in place, and to scrupulously avoid vote-buying at elections time, avoid using state resources for party campaigning, introduce campaign financing legislation and to create a level playing field for all candidates.
So long as there is vote-buying with its overwhelming advantage for the ruling party, any election conducted under these conditions cannot be deemed to be fair and by extension really free. There is more that candidates need to commit to, including to comprehensively rewrite the constitution, to abolish NICIL, to bring all public moneys including the lottery funds into the Consolidated Fund, to abolish slush funds, to ‘stamp out’ corruption and to prohibit ministers and public officials from operating businesses while in office.
I thank Messrs Ram and Khan for provoking me to consult the Constitution of Guyana once again.
Yours faithfully,
Ramon Gaskin
