Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

It is a measure of how low the APNU+AFC Coalition Government has sunk that its Prime Ministerial Candidate and leader of the AFC Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan defends the use of state resources by  David  Granger and his ministers to campaign for the March 2 General and Regional elections. And how dysfunctional the Granger Administration has become that Mr. Joseph Harmon, Co-Chair of the Campaign to reelect the Granger-led Coalition, can dismiss concerns about the abuse of state resources as “a ridiculous assertion” even as the Coalition’s manifesto launch was live streamed from public resources. Ramjattan was defending Granger’s use of aircraft from the Guyana Defence Force while politicking on the day of voting by members of the Disciplined Forces.

According to Mr. Harmon, the APNU+AFC campaign is being “financed by of persons who [see in] the programmes which we [the APNU+AFC] are embracing a future for Guyana and want to invest in that future.” Even assuming that that were true, Harmon is showing an incredible lack of familiarity with facts and with the law. One major contractor appears to have been appointed to approach the private sector soliciting funds for the Coalition. Two such members of the private sector sought my advice on the legitimacy of such payment. Just as an aside, for their massive contribution to the future which the APNU+AFC has embraced, no doubt including further increases in taxation, not a single senior member of the private sector has made it to the President’s National Awards.

Harmon is reported to have told the media that “a decision on the release of campaign financing information would be made at the end of the campaign.” That is not a choice Mr. Harmon, it is a requirement of the law. An Election expenses return and declarations has to be submitted to the Chief Election Officer within thirty-five days after the declaration of results.

Now back to Ramjattan’s preposterous statement. Like Harmon, Ramjattan shows a remarkable level of ignorance about matters on which he pronounces. I shall identify two such statements made by Ramjattan. The first is that US President Donald Trump in his current re-election bid, utilises state resources, including the presidential aircraft, Air Force One.  It is not whether he does or does not. It is whether the use is free. It is not. The rule is that whenever the president is travelling for political purposes, the Party or his Campaign must pay the federal government for the cost of the trip. Where there is a dual purpose, the cost is allocated but is never free.

The second one is frankly dishonest. He argued that the use of state resources “is the norm of every other democracy I know.” Let me remind Mr. Ramjattan of the work I did for the AFC through Sheila Holder and him in obtaining information on how to address campaign finance. I am sure if he makes a reasonable search he would recover the Model Code of Conduct for elections (MCC) in India.

Meanwhile, here are some relevant extracts from that document:

Ministers must not combine official visits with election work or use official machinery for the same.  APNU+AFC compliance: Violated.

The party must avoid advertising at the cost of the public exchequer or using official mass media for publicity on achievements to improve chances of victory in the elections. APNU+AFC compliance: Violated.

Ministers and other authorities must not announce any financial grants, or promise any construction of roads, provision of drinking water, etc. APNU+AFC Compliance: Violated.

Other parties must be allowed to use public spaces and rest houses and these must not be monopolised by the party in power. APNU+AFC Compliance: Violated.

And just let me remind Harmon and Ramjattan that these are the rules for elections coming after the normal end of a Parliament. The APNU+AFC Government ended on a Motion of No Confidence which Granger and his Government improperly and unconstitutionally violated.

And finally, it would be good to hear from Ramjattan who has responsibility for the Guyana Police Force whether he was informed and authorised Minister Annette Ferguson addressing members of the Police Force promising them house lots one day before they cast their votes in these elections, and whether that is also the norm with which he is familiar.

The conduct and pronouncements of three named Ministers in this letter show how low Guyana has sunk intellectually and morally under David Granger and how far we are from the campaign financing rules for which Sheila Holder and Khemraj Ramjattan advocated while in opposition.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I note the response by Mr. Godfrey Statia, Commissioner General, to my letter questioning the power and the authority of the Minister of Finance to issue Regulations under section 105 of the Income Tax Act exempting from income tax the retroactive percentage increase for 2019 for Government employees/public servants, etc.

Let me state at the outset that I have interacted with Mr. Statia since the eighties and have admired his performance, currently in one of the most difficult jobs in Guyana. I have stated publicly that on the occasions on which Mr. Statia does not operate within the letter of the law, he most often does so in a manner that favours the taxpayer. For this reason, while he and I often argue on taxation matters in the course of our respective functions, I would not engage in an adversarial exchange with him in public or engage in point-scoring.

I therefore reluctantly and respectfully disagree with him on the matter of the exemption from taxes of the payment of retroactive remuneration (for which he accepts responsibility) using as authority section 105 of the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, Mr. Statia’s letter referred to but did not reproduce the text of section 105 which states as follows:

 “The Minister may make regulations, subject to negative resolution of the National Assembly, to provide for the remitting wholly or in part of the tax payable by any person or category of persons on such income, in respect of any year of assessment, and in accordance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.”

In the tax world, there is an ocean of difference between exemption and remission, the first being that the income is not subject to tax and therefore the question of “tax payable” does not arise. On the other hand, the term “remission” means forgiveness of a tax which is due and payable but for which Parliament has granted some power to a designated authority to that under certain circumstances, to forgo and forgive it because it would be unjust to pursue the taxpayer.

Put another way, there is a charging section which imposes the tax but which excludes any exempt income, thereby setting up a liability which is discharged by payment or remission. In fact, section 6. (1C) the Financial Administration and Audit Act states as follows:

(1C) The Minister may make regulations or other subsidiary legislation to release the taxpayer under the procedure and conditions specified therein in whole or in part from the liability to pay tax otherwise due in cases where the taxpayer’s ability to pay tax due has been affected by natural disaster, disability, mental incapacity, or death, or if the taxpayer has been rendered homeless or destitute.

To have a remission one must first have a liability which is impossible if as the Regulations state, the income is exempt.

Finally, I note with some amusement that a letter published today makes headline news in the Chronicle of the same day! Beat that for promptness.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Ms Gail Teixeira did an extensive letter in the Stabroek News of August 9, 2019 captioned `GECOM is now an integral part of subversion of constitutional rule …. ‘ Among the points made in the letter is President David Granger’s unsubstantiated claim that the electoral roll is bloated by some two hundred thousand names, a proposition so absurd and false that it caused the Chief Election Officer to distance himself from the statement. For those who may not have read Teixeira’s letter, she demonstrated that if two hundred thousand names were removed from the electoral list, the revised list would have fewer names than the number of persons who voted in the 2015 elections!

I noted with some relief that even though Ms. Teixeira’s letter came some time after the appointment of Justice Claudette Singh as Chairperson of GECOM, it made no explicit criticism of Justice Singh, a person with whom I have engaged in a professional capacity over the past couple of years and of whom I have formed a favourable opinion. But my respect for her goes back even further, to her handling of the Esther Perreira elections petition case in which she was forthright in making coercive orders against the government of the day, among which were the unequivocal holding of elections by a prescribed day and forbidding it from using the state media as an advertising forum for political purposes

As the litigant in a no-confidence motion (NCM) case which the Granger administration appealed unsuccessfully all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice, I am more than a little bit concerned about the lack of urgency with which Justice Singh has moved in ensuring that Article 106 (7) of the Constitution as ruled by the High Court and upheld by the CCJ is observed. Justice Singh knows only too well that the ruling of the CCJ on June 18 needs no gloss and that the rule of law, the Constitution and the rulings by the Chief Justice are violated by any failure to comply.

More than two weeks after her appointment as GECOM’s Chair, Justice Singh has failed to convene a full meeting of that body, apparently because she is awaiting the decision in the case brought by me challenging the house-to-house registration exercise. As a seasoned former judge, she knows better than most Guyanese that the two cases relate to separate matters. The first is the effect of the no-confidence motion, including the automatic resignation of the cabinet and of the president as head of cabinet, and the requirement for elections in three months. While the first of these does not impose any duty on GECOM and is therefore not GECOM’s concern, to use the words of the CCJ, there is no ambiguity about article 106 (7) which, again using the words of the CCJ, needs no gloss.

The second matter is in relation to house-to-house registration which is taking place under an Order and the direction of James Patterson whose unilateral appointment by President Granger was also ruled as unlawful by the CCJ. I am confident that Justice Singh does not rule out the possibility of this Administration further prolonging itself in office by taking this case through to the CCJ as well.

It would be a violation of Justice Singh’s duty to the voters of this country and to its constitution and institutions, including the National Assembly and the Courts, if she didn’t  ensure that the ruling of the CCJ is carried out. She is well aware that there is no law requiring house-to-house registration in the existing circumstances of a no confidence motion, or indeed under any circumstances.

I have to admit that her failure to convene a meeting of GECOM to direct the Chief Election Officer to move expeditiously to give effect to the ruling of the CCJ on June 18 does cause me more than a little bit of surprise. For the moment, while I am still willing to give Justice Singh the benefit of the doubt, as the successful litigant in the NCM case and as a citizen of Guyana, I expect her to carry out her duty as Chairperson of GECOM in accordance with the Constitution and the CCJ’s ruling.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram