More high-profile Zambian commentators have been weighing into the debate on the new mining taxes. Sentiments making the newspapers seem to be almost exclusively positive, with a degree of excitement in that the Government has taken what seem to be brave and principled steps to overcome the inequity of previous tax arrangements with mining companies. Several commentators are at pains to defend the legality of the moves taken by a sovereign parliament to over-ride inequitable contracts, and many are effectively campaigning to build up public sentiments designed to discourage the mining companies from taking legal action. The companies themselves are remaining stubbornly quiet, insisting that further clarifications are needed before it is clear what the proposals entail.
The Daily Mail quotes Former Public Accounts Committee chairperson Bob Sichinga suggesting that the mining companies should contribute a lot more than 9.6 per cent effective tax rate that he believes the budget generates. “Mining companies must contribute a lot more than indicated in the budget measures at US$415 million equivalent to K1,660 billion. The estimated income still falls far short against a turnover estimated at K18,800 billion,” he said. Sichinga was also quoted in The Post arguing that the Zambian constitution mandated the Minister of Finance to impose a tax regime without consulting the affected party. "What the minister (Magande) has done is the right thing and I would like to commend him for that bold decision. Article 114 mandates the Minister of Finance to impose any tax regime without consulting the affected parties," said Sichinga.
The Post goes on to note that, in its 2008 budget analysis, prominent NGO the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) stated that the revision of the mining tax regime was a progressive step in ensuring that corporate institutions start making higher contributions to the revenue side of the budget. JCTR however noted that the government needed to address other challenges such as illegal mining, casualisation of labour and inadequate regulation in the mining sector, as taxes were only a small component of the current problems. "It will also be prudent for the government to remain alive to the fact that low taxes were only a small part of the huge challenges facing the mining sector. As summarised by Fraser and Lungu in 2006, these challenges include inadequate regulation, illegal operations, impunity, casualisation of the workforce, deepening pensioner poverty, lack of linkages to local business and failure to protect the social infrastructure," JCTR stated. "We hope that the additional US $415 million to be generated from taxes on mining firms would be spread across social and economic sectors to improve service delivery and increase capital investments necessary for integral human development."
In a letter to The Post, prominent Zambian business consultant, Trevor Simumba, who has recently worked for the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry also argued that "no agreement can take away the sovereign right of any country to legislate in the public interest and these taxes fall within that right. The only body with power to make laws is parliament." He added, "Worrying about investor sentiment is farfetched at a time of high metal prices. If any of the foreign multinational investors decide to contest these taxes or disinvest, I would say good riddance."
Finally, the Lusaka Times reports that the British Government not only supports the Zambian strategy, but supported the Zambian team that looked into the reforms. A statement released to ZANIS by the British High Commission and the Department for International Development (DFID Zambia) announces that the British Government is one of the two co-operating partners who have provided financial assistance to the Zambian Government to obtain its own independent technical and legal advise on renegotiating Zambia’s mining development agreements. Requests for further information on the UK position by MineWatchZambia secured a brief statement from DFID, essentially confirming the story but noting also that DFID would wait for further clarification of the precise nature of the new regime before responding to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment