Q &
A
Dick
Ng Sui Wa: “Effecting civil disobedience in the Gandhian
manner cannot be illegal”
Barrister
Dick Ng Sui Wa, of ‘Forum Citoyen’, which has lodged a
case in court against the National Residential Property Tax,
says he is flabbergasted that the State has still not
submitted its defence up to now…
*
Mr Sudamo Lall, Director General of the Mauritius Revenue
Authority (MRA) has stated that the National Residential
Property Tax (NRPT) is “leviable and collectable”, and
those that do not pay the tax will be liable to pay a
penalty. Looking at it from the legal perspective, isn’t
he right?
Yes
and no, strictly senso may be by virtue of Section 146 B of
the NRPT Act, but, no when we look at it in the whole
context of the respect of the institutions from the legal
perspective and the sacrosanct principle of separation of
powers and respect of the rule of law as entrenched in our
Constitution which is the law which supersedes all other
laws. Clearly the government is not respecting that and this
is very dangerous for the country.
In
this ambit, effecting civil disobedience in the Gandhian
manner cannot be illegal in this perspective. Why doesn’t
the government freeze the procedure until the court decides
as a finality. Why this rush? Further, I am flabbergasted
that the State has still not submitted its defence up to
now.
*
In other words, inviting taxpayers not to pay the NRPT
amounts to exposing them to the risk of falling foul of the
law. Isn’t that irresponsible?
As
I have stated above, no in the context of awaiting a
decision of the court, and further is not the State liable
to contempt of court for rushing in the procedure to make
the NRPT effective despite the challenge of its legality by
law-abiding citizens. Does the State violate the fundamental
rights of the people of Mauritius in so doing? In my
opinion, yes. As for me I have decided to await the
judgement of the court, that is my sacrosanct right.
*
The Forum Citoyen, of which you form part, has entered a
case in court contesting the NRPT. Shouldn’t it have gone
for an injunction of the tax itself, which would have
sheltered taxpayers who refuse to pay the NRPT from any
liability?
This
is found in Paragraph 43 of the Plaint with Summons whereby
the plaintiffs are asking for an interim order in the nature
of an injunction suspending the provisions of sections 111L,
111M and 111N of Act 15 of 2006 relevant to the NRPT pending
the determination of the present proceedings.
*
What has motivated the ‘Forum Citoyen’ to choose not to
apply for an injunction from the court?
As
stated above we have, the next question would be why
doesn’t the state await the court determination on that
issue ??? Also it is settled law that we cannot apply for an
injunction as an urgent interim relief pending determination
before the Supreme Court against the State as it requires
procedurally that this must be done by way of motion before
the Supreme Court in open court.
*
We understand that the government has not submitted its
defence in the matter before the court. What do you read in
that? Is it deliberate?
No
doubt, they don’t want to lose this case, one way is to
force the law through and delay the case.
|
