Latest update January 9th, 2025 4:10 AM
Nov 14, 2013 News
…holds out that Chancellor and CJ’s tax-free salaries are discriminatory
By Zena Henry
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, Attorney at Law Basil Williams, is unconvinced by Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall’s response to the granting of tax free salaries to the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice.
He called the AG’s parliamentary response to questions on the matter, “a feeble effort in justifying discrimination” against other members of the Judiciary.
Williams asked the AG at last week’s National Assembly about the revision of salaries and emoluments for judicial members, about his thoughts on whether it is discriminatory against the majority of members of the judiciary that only the CJ and Chancellor should receive tax free salaries and about whether all members of the judiciary will be receiving tax free salaries.
The AG said that the last major revision of salaries and emoluments for members of the judiciary was done in 2008. Since then, percentage increase in salaries given to public officers is also given to judicial members. The AG said that the Executive and the Judiciary are currently discussing a revision of salaries and emoluments for judicial officers.
The AG added that government does not consider the granting of tax-free salaries to the Chancellor and CJ only as being discriminatory. He said historically, there has always been a differential between the emoluments of the Chancellor and the CJ and other Judges because of the administrative responsibly passed on to those two senior functionaries of the judiciary, including their duties as ex-officio members of the Judicial Service Commission.
The current emoluments, the AG said, “were negotiated by Chancellor Desiree Bernard or /and accepted by former President Bharrat Jagdeo.”
The AG also stated that the government is not inclined to grant tax-free salaries to all members of the judiciary.
Williams, on the other hand, sees only the CJ and the Chancellor receiving tax-free dollars as a breach of the law which speaks to, “discrimination against classes of people.”
Williams said that it is recognized that there must be higher salaries for the CJ and Chancellor, but questioned how the two could be equated as the same when the Chancellor is the head of the Judiciary. Even more so, Williams continued, how can the government justify not paying the CJ a sum of money specific to his status/ dignity of a Senior Council.
Williams went on to question how the AG can justify the CJ and Chancellor receiving higher salaries than all other judges and are further granted tax free dollars, while receiving percentage increase as given to public officers, and received by judicial members.
Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, Williams, charged that it is improper for the Chancellor or the CJ who are supposed to head the independent Judicial arms of the state to be forced to go “cap in hand” to beg the government for increases in salaries because “on the face of it, it compromises the Judiciary’s independence and offends the doctrines of the separation of powers.”
“I have long now suggested to the government that it should establish an independent legal and judicial salaries commission, like Trinidad and Tobago, with the jurisdiction to review from time to time salaries and conditions of work for members of the judiciary.”
Jan 09, 2025
Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Football Federation (GFF) is set to commence the highly anticipated Elite League Qualification Playoffs on Saturday, January 11, 2025. This knockout-style...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Bharrat Jagdeo’s proclamation of his party’s approach to reducing income inequality... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- It has long been evident that the world’s richest nations, especially those responsible... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]