Dear Editor,
Messrs Eric Phillips in a letter dated February 28, and on the newspaper’s Blog, and Tacuma Ogunseye in a letter dated March 1, 2017, both employed in the State Asset Recovery Unit, threw caution, logic, facts and decency to the wind in defence of their boss, Professor Clive Thomas. Based on a subsequent telephone call I made to Mr Ogunseye, a friend of many, many years, it appears that his problem with me is a concern that I am engaged in the formation of a third party.
I never thought that the exercise of a democratic right of a citizen would cause such concern to a genuine freedom and resistance fighter, and I can only guess at the effect political power, absolute loyalty and employment have on people. While it is my right to engage in political activity of my choice, to put Mr Ogunseye’s mind at ease, I assured him that I am not and have not been involved in any discussion or plan to establish a political party.
Mr Phillips claimed in his response, that I was deceptive about the provision of the SARA Bill concerning the tax functions of the Director. According to Mr Phillips, any assumption of the functions of the Commissioner-General by the Director of SARA requires court intervention. Since he must know that any misrepresentation of the contents of the Bill could be easily rebutted, I assume that he either did not read the Bill, or having read it, still finds it beyond his comprehension. I will therefore try to assist him by citing the marginal note to the relevant clause which states as follows: “52. Director may discharge revenue functions of the Revenue Authority where a Civil Recovery Order is not appropriate.”
Let me explain, in as simple terms as possible, the text of clause 52. It provides that if the Director begins a civil recovery investigation and then decides, for whatever reason, not to pursue the matter through the court process, he has the option of pursuing the investigation as a tax matter instead. By the simple process of sending a notice to the Commissioner General, the Director automatically assumes the functions and powers of the Commissioner General in relation to the person or company he was pursuing. The clause goes on to state that the Commissioner General is bound to cooperate with and facilitate the Director’s work, presumably making his files and resources available to the Director.
I can put it another way. If the Director thinks his case is weak or his chances to pursue the individual or company through legal means are poor, he can instead use the tax laws to pursue the individual or company. That is nothing short of a licence to harass targets. Moreover, while the Commissioner General can only go back for up to eight years except in the case of fraud, the Director of SARA can use this backdoor measure to go back up to twelve years. The respective provisions are section 72 of the Income Tax Act and clause 53 of the SARA Bill.
For his benefit too, I refer simply to another provision of the Bill by reference to its marginal note: Clause 44: Property other than State Property. That confirms what I wrote: that despite the title of the Bill, it is about more than state assets.
I will not call on Mr Phillips to apologise to the public whom he has misled, out of an apparent failure to read or understand a Bill in which the SARU office and perhaps he played a significant role. And certainly not to me for accusing me of being deceptive. Those are matters of integrity and decency which are in short supply in public discourse. What I would do is suggest to Professor Thomas to recruit more informed spokespersons as defenders, who are less likely to embarrass him.
Because I am a strong supporter of state asset recovery, I again call for a thorough review of the Bill so that the executive can go after state assets without the fear that the Director, whoever it is that is considered “fit and proper” to be appointed by the proper body, will be able to operate without the real possibility of any investigation being stymied even before it can start.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
