Published on 18/10/2024
Lawmakers on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee have raised concerns over the government’s proposal to merge the Tax Appeals Tribunal and the Electricity Disputes Tribunal into a single National Tribunal. MPs argue that each tribunal requires distinct expertise, making the merger problematic.
Erute South MP Jonathan Odur questioned the logic behind combining two bodies that deal with fundamentally different issues—tax law and electricity disputes. Odur noted that this proposal doesn’t fit the conventional definition of a merger and could undermine the tribunals’ effectiveness by diluting specialized qualifications essential for their operations.
“What is being proposed here doesn’t fit in as a merger,” Odur remarked. “There is specialty in tax and electricity. How can this Bill justify a merger when the two don’t align?”
The government recently tabled the National Tribunal Bill, 2024, as part of a rationalization process aimed at reducing administrative costs. According to the bill, the new tribunal would adjudicate all disputes currently handled by the two separate entities.
Officials from the Tax Appeals Tribunal, including Chairperson Chrystal Kabajwara, highlighted key concerns in the proposal. Kabajwara noted discrepancies in member qualifications, with the Tax Appeals Tribunal requiring expertise in tax law or accounting, while the Electricity Disputes Tribunal demands specialized knowledge in electricity distribution and transmission.
“There is a need to harmonize the qualifications,” Kabajwara said. “You cannot have a tax expert resolving electricity disputes.”
Odur also criticized the lack of independence for the proposed National Tribunal, which would fall under the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs—an arrangement he argued could compromise impartiality, particularly given the Attorney General’s role as a litigant in some tribunal cases.
Another issue raised was the absence of a clear transition plan. Kabajwara warned that without proper provisions, current members of the Tax Appeals Tribunal may lose their positions, exacerbating an already significant backlog of cases.
Kabajwara also emphasized the importance of maintaining or increasing the number of tribunal members to manage the growing caseload, which includes around 600 ongoing cases, with 40 new cases filed each month. Reducing the number of tribunal members, as proposed in the bill, would only worsen the backlog, she argued.
Additionally, she called for the remuneration of tribunal members to be aligned with that of judicial officers, ensuring fair compensation for the workload and responsibilities.
The bill also proposes penalties for non-compliance with tribunal summons, including a fine of UGX 1.2 million or a two-year jail term for failing to appear as a witness or refusing to answer questions during proceedings.
