Justice Ramlal challenges Govt. over denial of tax-free salary

Jan 25, 2015 News

---

– says Chancellor, Chief Justice unfairly benefitting

A sitting judge has filed a court action that is likely to spark high interest.
Justice William Ramlal, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of Guyana in July 2000, wants the court to rule that he is entitled to an income tax free salary, as is currently being enjoyed by Chancellor (Ag), Carl Singh and Chief Justice (Ag), Ian Chang.

He says that he and other judges were denied but the Chancellor and the Chief Justice benefitted after a special law change was made to accommodate them.
He now wants compensation and a declaration by the court that he has been denied equality before the law and the equal protection and benefit of the law by the denial of the exemption from income.
The case was filed last week against the Attorney General, who is the legal advisor for Government.
Among other things, the Judge is asking the court to declare that Section 13 of the Income Tax Act Chapter 81:01 is discriminatory against him as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature and is unconstitutional, illegal, void and of no effect.
According to court documents, he wants a declaration that the continued deduction of income tax from his judicial income is in effect an unlawful alteration of the terms and conditions of him being a Judge.
Justice Ramlall is also requesting that a declaration be made that he is entitled upon retirement to a monthly pension and retirement benefits of not less than seven-eighths of his salary at the time of his retirement.
The relief would also include an order for constitutional compensation, damages and refund of income tax together with interest, of at least $34M.

Representing Justice Ramlal are C.V Satram, Sir Fenton Ramsahoye SC, R. Satram, P. Mohanlal, M. Satram, Ganesh Hira and Manoj Narayan.
According to the court documents, Justice Ramlal and his lawyers will be specifically looking at
Articles 8, 65, 126, 142, 149, 149D, 153 and 197(10) of the Constitution for the case.
It was argued that the office of Chancellor remained vacant following the elevation of Chancellor Desiree Bernard to the position of Justice of the Caribbean Court of Justice in 2005. Justice Carl Singh who is the substantive Chief Justice acted in the office of Chancellor following the departure of Bernard.
Unfair
Similarly, Justice Ian Chang who is a substantive Justice of Appeal is acting in the office of Chief Justice and “has so acted since the Honourable Justice Carl Singh commenced to act as Chancellor of the Judiciary.”

The affidavit, in support of the Constitutional Motion, said the state of affairs was brought about after he delivered a written decision declaring, among other things, that Chief Justice Singh could not in violation of the constitution hold the office of Chief Justice and perform the functions of Chancellor at the same time.
The Chancellor and the Chief Justice are the only Judges within the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana that are by Article 127 of the Constitution appointed by the President of Guyana after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, both were appointed to act in their respective offices by the President of Guyana. There has been no agreement between the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice.
According to the court documents, Justices Singh, Chang and Ramlal are all Judges of the Supreme Court rendering judicial services and enjoying the same security of tenure and protection from unlawful alteration of our terms and conditions of service.
In 2003, the Judges met with the President Bharrat Jagdeo and unsuccessfully asked for an exemption from income tax.
Yet one year later, in 2004, the income tax laws were amended allowing the Chancellor and the Chief Justice exemption from income tax. The other judges were ignored.
“The judges other than the Chancellor and Chief Justice are not entitled to exemption from income tax. The Chancellor and Chief Justice have some responsibilities of an administrative nature but the nature and character of the judicial services rendered by all members of the Supreme Court of Judicature is the same. The administrative responsibilities resulting in some duties of a different nature are limited and provide no valid ground for the difference of treatment in relation to exemption from income tax.”
Justice Ramlal claimed that starting from 2004, because of that tax exemption denial, he lost approximately $34M.
Not Motivated
“The difference in privilege between me as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature and a Chancellor and Chief Justice who are members of the Supreme Court obliged to render judicial services in the administration of civil and criminal justice generates a feeling of inferiority and hardens the struggle against demotivation in relation to the heavy judicial risks which I continuously perform,” the Judge said in his affidavit.
The denial of the privilege also caused him to “feel unworthy” and made him “an innocent victim of the discriminatory exercise of State power in the legislature”.
He argued that the aggravation he suffered has been and continues to be severe from the financial loss by being denied equality of treatment and the benefit and protection of the law enjoyed by the Chancellor and Chief Justice as a result of the deduction of income tax as cater for under the law relating to Income Tax.
“The judicial income of the members of the Supreme Court ought not to bear charges that are different and unequal and signifies authoritarian and arbitrary rule within the justice system itself.”
Justice Ramlal also believed that the grant of the exemption from income tax by Parliament is outside their authority and not within the scope of Article 65 of the Constitution.
“1 am advised by my Attorneys-at-Law and verily believe that the distinction between the Chancellor and Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature for purposes of the exemption from income tax by the legislature is unlawful and discriminatory contrary to article 149D (1) of the Constitution.”
Ramlal said that he was advised by his Attorneys-at-Law and that all the judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature ought to be treated equally and ought to enjoy the benefit and protection of the law by reason of their performance of the same judicial services for the state.
Unaffordable
“1 am further advised by my Attorneys-at-Law and verily believe that the different privileges created by the exemption to impose unequal burdens upon judicial incomes are subversive of the rule of law and inconsistent with democratic governance. The award of the privilege to the Chancellor and Chief Justice to the exclusion of other Judges creates perception of partiality inconsistent with the independence of the judiciary by the State by placing the Chancellor and Chief Justice in a more favourable position above all other Judges with respect to payment of income tax.”
Significantly, Justice Ramlal, in his affidavit, also pointed out that Members of Parliament, upon retirement, enjoy seven-eighths of their salary as pension in circumstances where the Constitution makes no provision for same.
“This level of pension (to which he is entitled) is not enough to maintain the standard of living I currently enjoy as a judge and to keep me from practising at the bar on retirement. The actions of the state are contrary to the spirit and intent of article 197(10) of the Constitution. Upon retirement I will not enjoy the allowances which I now enjoy as a Judge.”
Justice Ramlal also claimed that he has suffered severe financial loss by the denial of equal treatment and the benefit and protection of the law as a judge of the Supreme Court.
In December, Ramlal’s lawyers wrote the Attorney General demanding compensation but there were no response.

---

---