After several requests, the Judicial Service Commis-sion (JSC) has still not yet appointed a judge to consider the request by Justice William Ramlall for constitutional redress for the deduction of millions in income tax from his salary.
When the matter was again called before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on Thursday, the judge announced that communication had been made with acting Chancellor Carl Singh regarding the JSC appointing a temporary judge to hear the case. Justice Chang, however, informed that a judge is still to be appointed.
The Chief Justice resultantly set September 17th for reports on whether the JSC would have appointed a judge.
Justice Chang had previously noted that the doctrine of necessity provides that a temporary judge would have to be appointed by the JSC to hear the matter, since he has to recuse himself. He noted that a judge has to be appointed so as not to affect Ramlall’s constitutional right of having the matter heard.
The Chief Justice has been forced to recuse himself from hearing the case as both he and the acting Chancellor are at the centre of the action brought by Justice Ramlall.
Justice Ramlall argues that tax exemptions granted to both the acting Chief Justice and acting Chancellor are discriminatory.
In a constitutional motion, which lists the Attorney General as the respondent, Justice Ramlall has asked for a refund of the approximately $34 million with interest, which was deducted from his salary from 2004 to the end of 2014. In addition, he is also requesting declarations that he has been denied equality and equal protection and benefit under the law; that Section 13 of the Income Tax Act is discriminatory against him; that the deductions of income tax is an unlawful alteration of the terms and conditions of his service; that the State is not entitled to take or receive income tax from him and that in keeping with article 197 (10) he is entitled to a monthly pension and retirement benefits of not less than seven eights of his salary at the time of his retirement.
“At the date of my appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature all judges including the Chancellor and Chief Justice paid income tax on their judicial incomes and the relief of two judges from liability to the exclusion of others has been severely prejudicial to me,” he argues in the motion, which was filed on January 23rd in the High Court.
The judge, who was appointed in July 2000, said during a 2003 meeting between the judges and then President Bharrat Jagdeo, representations were made concerning the grant of exemption from income tax on incomes for judges. Those representations, Justice Ramlall said, were not successful except for the passage of an amendment in 2004 to “allow the Chancellor and the Chief Justice exemption from income tax in accordance with Section 13 (a) of the Income Tax Act.”
Justice Ramlall has said that what sets the Chancellor and Chief Justice apart from the other judges is that they have some responsibilities of an administrative nature. Nevertheless, he argues that the “nature and character” of the judicial services rendered by all members of the Supreme Court of Judicature is the same and the added administrative responsibilities is no valid ground for the difference of treatment in relation to exemption from income tax.
