MPs taxation: NGOs need to rethink their methods

The rage and campaign against MPs over income tax is on. Sections in the NGO world are wild against MPs claiming that they do not pay tax.

Mobilisation of ordinary citizens against their elected representatives is on-going. Money is being spent on advertorials to send messages to the people that MPs are not paying taxes. Workshops are being held to tell Ugandans that MPs are not paying taxes.

The problem
But what exactly is the problem? It’s wider. Lawyers tell me that when they are prosecuting a case, they usually first agree on the facts and the issues at hand.

Where they have disagreement on matters of law, they then plead their case before the judge in open court. I find it an interesting principle because before the matter goes on trial, the lawyers are able to gauge whether they have a strong case or not and then advise their clients appropriately.

But some civil society groups run away with anything factual or not, after all, there is a budget to be spent.

Sections of civil society have runaway with falsehoods and are so engrossed in perpetuating it that they feel agitated when other facts are presented. They are telling the world that Ugandan MPs do not pay taxes on their income and do not want to do so.

The fact is that MPs pay PAYE. The salary of MPs which was Shs2.6 million was consolidated with their subsistence allowance to make the gross pay of an MP total to Shs11.18 million monthly from which 40 per cent is a tax component. From the same money, they also make their pension contribution of 15 per cent monthly leaving an MP with Shs6.1 million take home. They also pay tax on their gratuity.

But the crusaders against MPs keep saying MPs do not pay tax at all. Some voices from URA have also been heard backing this skewed method of advocacy. Can URA confirm that they have never collected PAYE from MPs?

The issue is on taxation of MPs mileage. The argument of MPs is that the reimbursement paid to them for transport should not be categorised as an income to them yet they, indeed, must visit their constituencies.

From the same mileage, they also pay their drivers and service their vehicles because Parliament does not provide them with drivers and does not repair nor service their cars.
The other argument is that of equity. This is a very valid argument.

The MPs agree to it. It calls for a general review of the Income Tax Act.

It would also imply that those currently exempted from paying income tax, for instance, the judges and armed forces, must then be brought to the hook since the argument being advanced is that all Ugandans must pay income tax.

Instead of focusing the argument on equity, some have opted to maliciously disparage MPs as non-tax payers.
Equity extends to accountability. MPs must be held to account, so are civil society groups. MPs must account to the people who elected them.

NGOs must account to the people on whose behalf they mobilise donor support. Civil society accountability tends to be to those who give the money. What about those for whom you claim to mobilise the money?

We expect synergy between NGOs and political leadership. For instance, are memoranda of understanding signed between NGOs and districts in which they operate? That would improve accountability on both sides.

The demand that MPs must be responsive to the needs of the people is a very important one.

However, the packaging of this demand tends to portray MPs as unfit to meet the demands of the people. Let us first recognise the fact that MPs or elected leaders are the ones who hold legitimate power of the people not anyone else.