Citizens are very eager to know who was responsible for the embarrassment that occurred at State House some few days ago when the Secretary to the President, Dennis Sandy, had put out a release from the Office of the President dated 24th May, 2018 instructing the Financial Secretary to put on hold the implementation of the Finance Acts of 2016, 2017 and 2018 until further notice, following a meeting between the President and a cross section of the Business Community in the Country.
The Commissioner General, National Revenue Authority (NRA), was accordingly informed for necessary actions.
Four days after the release, another release was originated from State House precisely from the same Secretary to the President dated the 28th may ,2018 reminding the Public that the Financial Acts of 2016,2017 and 2018 were enacted by Parliament and that they could only be amended by Parliament on the advice of the Minister of Finance .
The Secretary to the President further stated that he had erred in his memo of 24th May,2018, ascribing the Presidency to the earlier directive quoting Sections 110 (1) of Act No 6 of 1991 which clearly states that ‘No taxation shall be imposed or altered otherwise than by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.’
The release further draws the attention of the public that during the meeting the President was concerned about the impact of any taxation on ordinary people and therefore only suspended discussions on the matter while informing the general business community that all relevant laws relating to revenue collection remain valid until so amended by an Act of Parliament, further apologizing to the business community and the general public for any inconveniences this miscommunication could have caused.
What is baffling to many Sierra Leoneans is the mediocrity that has surrounded this very important issue. How can a whole Secretary to President could have miss communicated very gravely on a meeting the President had with the business community on a quite controversial issue that had even surfaced as an election campaign issue with the SLPP promising to review such laws.
So how can we be fooled that the correspondence that emerged from the Secretary to the President, a very senior if not the most senior civil servant, just after the meeting of the President with the business Community, was a miscommunication.
We are very certain that the Presidency was in hurry to please certain individuals, especially in the business community, that led him to suspend these regulations hurriedly without reference to his legal advisers.
But as grace may have it the President was quickly alerted some four days back when the correspondence was already within the different players in the economic sector for subsequent implementation by his legal advisers whose expert advice he could have bypassed prior to him calling for the suspension of these financial Acts
This could have resulted to series of legal battles as the decision was highly unconstitutional. It could have resulted to legal embarrassment for the Presidency.
If ever this is the case we are calling on the Secretary to the President to resign his position as the mistake if ever it was is very grave and embarrassment to the Presidency.