Every pay day, Guyanese workers are reminded of the reach of the tax system. Before many of them can meet their rent or mortgage, buy groceries, pay for transportation or support their families, a portion of their earnings has already been claimed by the state. Businesses, too, are required to keep records, file returns and account for their income. The Guyana Revenue Authority has the power to ask questions, demand explanations and pursue those suspected of failing to meet their obligations.
It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the same rigour is applied when questions arise about the wealth, properties and business interests of those who govern the country. Are the financial affairs of senior public officials examined with the same determination that the state expects ordinary taxpayers to accept?
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, who faces questions about his own holdings, has raised queries about properties and investments associated with President Irfaan Ali and several ministers. The Office of the Opposition Leader has described the President’s farm and estate as being worth more than $5.5 billion. The President disputes the figures circulated about the farm’s size and value. Neither estimate should be treated as an established valuation, but the questions raised about its financing and development remain matters of public interest. At the heart of this matter should be the procurement and importation of state-of-the art farming technologies. We’re these bought and imported by the President or by Mr. Ali the private entrepreneur? Were the Customs and Excise duties duly paid?
Mr Mohamed has also alleged that a luxury apartment complex associated with Minister Susan Rodrigues is worth more than $1 billion. He drew attention to a Florida property linked to her, reportedly purchased for US$540,000, or approximately $116 million. Ms Rodrigues disputes his account of the apartment complex and says that the Florida property, owned by a company in which she has shares, was purchased with a mortgage.
These are substantial sums. If the estimates are to be taken seriously, they must be tested against reliable evidence. But the government cannot expect citizens to dismiss their questions merely because the officials concerned have issued denials. The issue is not whether a public official is permitted to own property or conduct lawful business. The issue is whether the sources of income and financing behind such assets can be properly accounted for, and whether any taxable income was declared and the taxes due were paid.
President Ali has said that his farm was acquired before he became President, that it carries substantial loans and that his assets and financing have been declared to the Integrity Commission. He has also rejected suggestions that the farm received preferential treatment or state assistance.
Those explanations invite further questions. What income has the farm generated, and how has its development been financed over time? What arrangements paid for its infrastructure, equipment and agricultural technology? Where the operation has generated taxable income, have the applicable filing and payment obligations been met? These questions do not establish tax evasion or corruption. They establish what an independent examination would need to consider.
Minister Rodrigues has said that her assets were lawfully acquired and declared, and she has shared mortgage and property documents in response to some of Mr Mohamed’s claims. She has also referred to rental income and family business proceeds as sources of funds. Those explanations deserve to be considered alongside the records. They also raise legitimate questions about the income generated by the relevant enterprises and properties, and whether any applicable taxes were paid. A mortgage may explain how a property was financed; the source of the income used to service it is a separate matter.
Minister Zulfikar Mustapha has said that his Bloomfield home was financed through a bank mortgage and personal savings accumulated over a long career in public service. He has denied Mr Mohamed’s allegations and said he can account for his assets. Questions have also been raised about property and mining interests associated with members of his family. Any examination of those matters must distinguish the minister’s assets from those of his relatives and establish the facts before drawing conclusions.
Minister Sarah Browne-Shadeek has also faced questions after Mr Mohamed described a residence associated with her family as being worth more than $100 million. She has said that the property belongs to her husband and has rejected the allegations as political and without factual basis. Ms. Browne-Shadeek’s response is interesting as it places her husband as the sole financier of the property. The public is entitled to scrutiny that follows ownership and financing records, in this case both hers and her husband, rather than assuming that a photograph establishes either the value of a property or the source of the money used to acquire it.
The wider cost to taxpayers was addressed years ago by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran in his Accountability Watch column in the now-defunct Stabroek News. Drawing on his experience overseeing public procurement, Mr Goolsarran estimated that leakages in that system were in the order of 20 per cent. Applying his estimate to procurement spending in the approved 2016 budget, he suggested that the annual leakage could have been approximately $32 billion.
That was an estimate of procurement leakages, not a finding that 20 per cent of the entire national budget was stolen, nor that every dollar of leakage resulted from corruption. Even with that distinction, the implication is serious. Money lost through inflated costs, inefficiency, substandard work or corrupt arrangements is money the public has already been required to surrender to the state, only to receive less value in return.
The burden is therefore twofold. Citizens pay taxes to finance public services and development; where public money is improperly spent or lost, they bear the cost again through inadequate services, avoidable borrowing or projects that fail to deliver value. The worker who dutifully pays income tax has a direct interest in whether a public contract was fairly awarded, whether its price was justified and whether the work was properly completed.
Tax fairness also requires a consistent standard across political lines. Mr Mohamed and his father face allegations in the United States concerning taxes and royalties allegedly owed on gold exports; they deny the allegations and are contesting extradition. Those matters should be determined through due process. They do not excuse a failure to examine credible questions about government officials, just as accusations against officials do not exempt Mr Mohamed or anyone else from scrutiny.
Tax returns are generally private, and the public cannot assume that an individual’s decision not to publish a return proves that taxes have gone unpaid. But confidentiality is not a licence for institutional inaction. The appropriate authorities can examine relevant records within their lawful powers, and senior officials can offer meaningful public explanations without waiting for a political controversy to force a response.
Guyanese are repeatedly told that paying taxes is a civic obligation. The government’s obligation is just as clear: ensure that tax laws are applied fairly and that public money is protected. If ordinary citizens must account for their earnings, those who wield public power cannot expect questions about substantial assets, income and expenditure to be settled by indignation alone. The tax system loses its authority when the public believes that scrutiny is rigorous at the bottom and negotiable at the top.
Discussion