LETTERS - Taxation in the mining sector
Taxation in the mining sectorBy Nkula Kaoma
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
In the ‘Saturday Post’ issue of March 24th 2007 , you carried a story where Justice minister George Kunda told Parliament that the development agreements entered into with mining companies were above the law.
This sweeping statement coming from Kunda has very dangerous implications. Taking into consideration Kunda’s lies over the illegal nolle prosequi that he facilitated over the now jailed Bulaya and the constitution-making roadmap, we need the input of the Attorney-General to clarify that statement.
The development agreements that Kunda referred to are provided for under section 9 (2) of the mines and minerals Act which among other things have altered the payment of mineral royalties from 3 per cent as provided for in section 66 of the mines and minerals Act to 0.6 per cent; royalties are a form of taxation.
Article 114 (3) of the Constitution provides that, “Parliament may make provision under which the President or the Vice President or a minister may by order provide that, on or after the publication of a Bill being a Bill approved by the President that it is proposed to introduce into the National Assembly and providing for the imposition or alteration of taxation, such provisions of the Bill as may be specified in the order shall have the force of law for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by Parliament:”
The information available is that these development agreements like earlier stated, among other things altered the payment of royalties from 3 per cent to 0.6 per cent and that they were signed by the minister and the new mine owners.
Bearing in mind that royalties form part of taxation, were these development agreements presented in the National Assembly by the President, Vice President or Minister as “orders” seeking to alter taxation known as royalties as provided for by Article 114 (3) of the Constitution?
In signing government agreements, the Attorney-General plays a leading role, can the new truly learned Attorney-General clarify this matter for the nation.
If these development agreements were not presented as “orders” in the National Assembly seeking to alter taxation, then they are in breach of the Constitution and any other law (section 9 (2) of the mines and minerals Act) which is inconsistent with the Constitution, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
As such, these development agreements can be altered by government without any breach so as to impose meaningful taxation in the mining industry for the benefit of the country.
It will be interesting for Kunda also to show the nation which law is below these development agreements or may be the Constitution is not law.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24467
Shoddy works on Kafue Estates road
By Lee Muzala, Kafue Estates
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
I am a Kafue resident, sickened by the standard of works being carried out on the road leading to Kafue Estates.
It is sad to note that jokes of such magnitude can be carried out under the noses of citizens. How do you get gravel to patch a worn-out tarred road? As you drive along the same patched roads, you see how much of the soil put in the potholes is being blown away by just one vehicle.
Ten vehicles later, the pothole resurfaces again. What technology is this? What bravery is this? Where is the MP? Who sanctioned the works? Someone needs to be answerable. We need answers! Bwana MP it’s time you plucked your head out of cloud nine, and get down to work, because five years is not too long.
Someone somewhere is sitting on a high stool because they are raking in millions of taxpayers’ money by bringing in that soil and shoveling it around to cover the gaping holes on the roads. As tax-paying citizens, we demand high quality jobs to be carried out on our infrastructure, amenities and other services.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24464
Chief Chibesakunda succession
By Benson Chita Ng'ona and Umwina Ng'ona
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
I want to rebuff the utterances in Newton Ng’uni’s letter to you on the aforecaptioned subject matter in the Post of March 22, 2007 and the more “detailed” version of the same that appeared in your publication of March 24, 2007.
I write as a true born Umwina Ng’ona and grandson to our venerable Chief Chibesakunda IX. Abena Ng’ona have no intention of conducting themselves in a similar manner as Ng’uni and carry on a debate on matters that have already been exhausted by the traditional structures in Umutambe, The Mutambe Royal Establishment and subsequently by the courts of law.
However, we cannot allow such a slanderous smear go without response, lest the public be left with a lopsided impression. It is therefore regrettable that I find myself in the unenviable position of having to respond to a misguided and uninformed person that Ng’uni is. Kusabaila uko!
First, we would like the readers to know that Bwembya Bob Luo was selected out of four contestants for the seat of senior chief Chibesakunda on November 25, 2003 in accordance with the Umutambe tradition. The question is, why has it taken this ‘gentleman’ so long to come up with objections to the prevailing situation? It is our contention that the man has an ulterior motive.
From his letter, one gets the distinct impression that Ng’uni has a keen interest in the Chibesakunda chieftaincy; however he was conspicuous by his absence at the selection process at which he would have had the chance to challenge the Umutambe electoral college over their decision as to who was their preferred candidate.
He has neither authority nor jurisdiction in matters that affect Umutambe. The man is from Mpika for God’s sake! What is more, where and from whom does Ng’uni get his authority to challenge the Umutambe Royal Establishment’s decision? Is he a member of the Mutambe royal family and is he himself Umwina Ng’ona from Mutambe?
Furthermore, is he a member of the Chibesakunda family? This is indeed a perplexing situation and we would like to have these questions answered and for him to show us his family tree. Ng’uni purports to be interested in keeping the Chibesakunda lineage pure.
From what stand point and who gives him these powers to insult our intelligence with such impunity?
As far as we are concerned, none of us has ever seen him grow in any part of Mutambe, neither did he ever represent this area during his tenure of political office when the wrangles were at their height?
Now that things are quite, must he start troubles? Who is this arrogant Newton Ng’uni to be personally attacking our popular and development-oriented chief? The people in Mutambe are not responsible for his miserable failure to win the Kanchibiya seat in the last Presidential and General Elections. If he is genuine in his intent, he should address his concerns to the Umutambe Royal Establishment, who sanction the selection of the chief instead.
To our knowledge nobody appointed Ng’uni as our spokesperson; we are well able to do that ourselves.
We rather suspect that this unfortunate person is being strung along like a brainless puppet by other forces who would like nothing better than to see Mutambe go through another 15 years without a popular chief.
In his letter, he appears to imply that His Excellency the President of Zambia recognised Luo’s ascension as a matter of political expediency. This, of course calls into question the sanity of this unfortunate fellow.
For his information, the President plays no part in the selection process whatsoever and as for us, we are totally indebted to His Excellency for recognising the wishes of the Mutambe Royal Establishment. We have no wish to continue this debate in the press and would advise bwana Ng’uni to make his way to Chinsali and confront the Umutambe Royal Establishment and show them the error of their ways. We will be waiting for him.
In the meantime, he knows that attacking a chief in the way he has done is not the way to do things and that he should desist and follow the laid down procedure, and as he is not from Mutambe, he is uneducated in these matters and should consult people who know better. Ng’uni’s assertions are libelous and completely unfounded.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24465
Solving the problem of street children
By Malcolm Chiyoba, UNZA
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00] Print Article Email Article
Following your editorial of the 26th of March, 2007, I would like to share some thoughts on this issue of streetism that looks like an everlasting problem in this country despite the multiplication of orphanages and such organisations trying to bring the situation under control.
The central idea I feel that needs re-emphasising is the role of the extended family in the fight against the vice.
The problem is, this problem keeps recurring even when the kids are removed from the streets and this is because the cause is not taken care of, and this primary cause is the broken extended family system that results in orphans left in hopelessness.
This, as it were, is not to suggest all those children are orphans for others are coming from huge families where a parent can’t afford even to count the children, let alone feed them. Others are from disabled parents.
All these children, who are even now getting pregnant from the streets must be put into perspective in our efforts to stop this sad thing.
And the best way to handle it is to strengthen the extended family system especially in cases of children who are orphans or whose parents are disabled.
For those careless breeders who are really up to "filling the earth," there is need for educating them on the importance of having a smaller number of children and this education can still be offered by the extended family and the government or maybe a law must be passed to put a maximum on the number of progene one should have in this nation.
The K6.2 billion allocated to getting the situation under control must be used to establish homes or unite these children with their families where their emotional, psychological and social needs will be better met than at an orphanage (they are doing a commendable work) or Zambia National Service. The point is if we continue just picking them from the streets we will be fighting a lossing battle.
Let’s just re-look at the extended family that has provided parent figures for many of us in this country.
The nuclear family is for the West! Parents, please tell your children about their relatives and tell them the values of a life system under which you grew up, otherwise we will not be strengthening the extended family.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24466
Getting rid of vendors
By Mukomwa Kambwali
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
I strongly support the action taken by the Lusaka City Council to get rid of vendors. The vendors' contribution to making Lusaka ugly and dirty cannot be disputed.
In this country, we seem to be very good at institutionalising wrongs. For example, when squatters are being removed for illegal settlement, we raise hell and claim they are entitled. Even the shanty compounds like Kalingalinga, Kamanga or Misisi which started as illegal settlements have now been accorded legal status.
The problem lies with the Lusaka City Council. One wonders whether anyone is accountable for the design of the city, ensuring that the construction of buildings is according to approved norms, and many other things. Going by their primitive adverts, the LCC seems to be only interested in collecting fees for services they never provide.
The LCC needs to be held accountable. Now that the vendors have been moved out, they should ensure that that part of the city is kept clean and no vendors allowed to crawl back. They should also ensure that no one starts constructing abnormal structures in the town centre.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24464
Chief Chibesakunda succession
By Benson Chita Ng'ona and Umwina Ng'ona
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
I want to rebuff the utterances in Newton Ng’uni’s letter to you on the aforecaptioned subject matter in the Post of March 22, 2007 and the more “detailed” version of the same that appeared in your publication of March 24, 2007.
I write as a true born Umwina Ng’ona and grandson to our venerable Chief Chibesakunda IX. Abena Ng’ona have no intention of conducting themselves in a similar manner as Ng’uni and carry on a debate on matters that have already been exhausted by the traditional structures in Umutambe, The Mutambe Royal Establishment and subsequently by the courts of law.
However, we cannot allow such a slanderous smear go without response, lest the public be left with a lopsided impression. It is therefore regrettable that I find myself in the unenviable position of having to respond to a misguided and uninformed person that Ng’uni is. Kusabaila uko!
First, we would like the readers to know that Bwembya Bob Luo was selected out of four contestants for the seat of senior chief Chibesakunda on November 25, 2003 in accordance with the Umutambe tradition. The question is, why has it taken this ‘gentleman’ so long to come up with objections to the prevailing situation? It is our contention that the man has an ulterior motive.
From his letter, one gets the distinct impression that Ng’uni has a keen interest in the Chibesakunda chieftaincy; however he was conspicuous by his absence at the selection process at which he would have had the chance to challenge the Umutambe electoral college over their decision as to who was their preferred candidate.
He has neither authority nor jurisdiction in matters that affect Umutambe. The man is from Mpika for God’s sake! What is more, where and from whom does Ng’uni get his authority to challenge the Umutambe Royal Establishment’s decision? Is he a member of the Mutambe royal family and is he himself Umwina Ng’ona from Mutambe?
Furthermore, is he a member of the Chibesakunda family? This is indeed a perplexing situation and we would like to have these questions answered and for him to show us his family tree. Ng’uni purports to be interested in keeping the Chibesakunda lineage pure.
From what stand point and who gives him these powers to insult our intelligence with such impunity?
As far as we are concerned, none of us has ever seen him grow in any part of Mutambe, neither did he ever represent this area during his tenure of political office when the wrangles were at their height?
Now that things are quite, must he start troubles? Who is this arrogant Newton Ng’uni to be personally attacking our popular and development-oriented chief? The people in Mutambe are not responsible for his miserable failure to win the Kanchibiya seat in the last Presidential and General Elections. If he is genuine in his intent, he should address his concerns to the Umutambe Royal Establishment, who sanction the selection of the chief instead.
To our knowledge nobody appointed Ng’uni as our spokesperson; we are well able to do that ourselves.
We rather suspect that this unfortunate person is being strung along like a brainless puppet by other forces who would like nothing better than to see Mutambe go through another 15 years without a popular chief.
In his letter, he appears to imply that His Excellency the President of Zambia recognised Luo’s ascension as a matter of political expediency. This, of course calls into question the sanity of this unfortunate fellow.
For his information, the President plays no part in the selection process whatsoever and as for us, we are totally indebted to His Excellency for recognising the wishes of the Mutambe Royal Establishment. We have no wish to continue this debate in the press and would advise bwana Ng’uni to make his way to Chinsali and confront the Umutambe Royal Establishment and show them the error of their ways. We will be waiting for him.
In the meantime, he knows that attacking a chief in the way he has done is not the way to do things and that he should desist and follow the laid down procedure, and as he is not from Mutambe, he is uneducated in these matters and should consult people who know better. Ng’uni’s assertions are libelous and completely unfounded.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=24462
Accepting other people's opinions
By John Milimo, Lusaka
Thursday March 29, 2007 [02:00]
One fundamental aspect of democracy is creating room for other political parties to make rallies in order for them to continue selling their manifestos.
To my surprise here in Zambia, for an opposition to be given a chance to conduct a rally, it is a struggle.
Any opposition should not be considered as an enemy but a person with a different opinion, who looks at reality from a different angle. To be an opposition also does not mean opposing everything the ruling party says but challenging each other on how best you can develop the country.
The President and his government must be very flexible to positive criticism. My point here is that you must establish a mutual relationship because you all claim to serve the Zambian people for the common good. The ruling party must test itself democratically by creating room to be out of power not doing everything possible to remain in power.
Labels: CHIEFS, GEORGE KUNDA, MINING, TAXATION
posted by MrK @ 3:43 AM
1 Comments:
The mining deals unconstitutional? I like it even more.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home