Friday, 11 November 2016

Income Tax, Kenyan Tax Law

By Kavosa Assava, LLB
Income Tax
·         S. 3 (1) – Income tax; charged for each year of income; whether resident or non-resident; accrued or derived from Kenya.
·         S. 3 (2)- what is chargeable as income tax?
·         S. 5 – when income from employment is deemed to be accrued or derived from Kenya; this gives two scenarios;
1.        Resident; S. 5 (1) (a) ; in or outside Kenya
2.       Non- Resident S. 5 (1) (b); only if you work for a Kenyan Employer; a non-resident is taxed where he or she renders employment for a Kenyan employer or a Permanent Establishment.
·         S. 2; definition of ‘Permanent Home.’
·         A permanent establishment is a business not registered in Kenya but operates its business within Kenya and has done so for at least 6 months.
·         What should be included in your employment income? S. 5 (2) (a)
1.        Salaries
2.       Wages
3.       Allowances; hardship, entertainment, housing, car loans, school fees, insurance, security, food, vacation, leave. E. t.c
·         S. 5 (2) (a) (ii); any reimbursement from the employer is not considered part of your salary and hence is not taxable- where you spend your own money in the course of employment and your employer pays you back.
·         S. 5 (2) (a) (iii); the first 2000 of reimbursement is tax- free; any amount above that has to be evidenced by receipt before exemption from tax is granted.
·         Benefits received from employer that are below 36000 per year are exempt from tax.
·         An employee is not liable if an employer fails to deduct tax.
·         S. 5 (2) (B); Car allowance- 2% of initial cost of the car; that amount is added to the salary and the taxed; for tax purposes, the car never depreciates.
·         Some employers will hire a car for the employee; alternatively the car may never sleep at the employee’s residence.
·         Airtime; 30% of the total on personal consumption. It is this 30% of value of airtime that is determined and added to salary for taxation.
·         Housing: the higher of three things is taxed;
1.        Market Rate
2.       15% of [ salary + Taxable benefits ]
3.       How much employer is paying for rent
·         When an employer gives an employee money it is added to the basic salary and then subjected to tax; i. e. duty allowance or entertainment allowance.
Tax exempt
·         Medical benefits are not taxable
·         School Fees: If employer pays school fees for employees children, it  is tax free
·         Passages are not taxable; In recruitment of expatriates, buying the air ticket. However where employer gives employee the money to buy the ticket, it is taxable.
·         Meals: Provision of meals at the business premises is tax free up to a maximum of 4000 per month or 48000 per year, per employee.
·         Home Ownership Savings Plan- only taxed at date of withdrawal; you can only save a maximum of 48,000 a year; if you exceed this it is taxable.
Deductions
·         Mortgage Interest Deduction- If an employee is paying a mortgage then he or she can deduct the interest before subjecting salary to taxation. The maximum is 150, 000 per year or 12,500 per month. [s.15(3)(b)] It must be a residential home and he must be living in it at the time in order to effectuate the deduction.
·         Pension- pension contributions are deducted from salary before taxation; the employee makes a contribution and the employer matches it; the maximum pension deduction allowed is 20,000 per month or 240,000 per year. It is taxed at withdrawal the total at the normal rate unless you wait until 65 years of age where it will be tax-free.
·         The 20,000 max is shared between the employer and the employee. However, the employee has priority in terms of the benefit of deduction.
·         Personal relief: Personal Relief is deducted from the tax liability. [ P.a = 13,944; P.m = 1,162 ]
·         Where an employee is terminated before the contract of service expires, he or she is entitled to an amount in compensation for the remaining years. The compensation is spread out evenly for the remaining term under the contract.[ Specified Term + Specified compensation = Spread Out Evenly for remaining contract]
§  Where there is an unspecified term of employment under the contract but there is a specific amount allocated as compensation, the amount is spread at the rate of earnings or salary of the employee according to how he or she was being paid per annum.[ Unspecified Term + Specified Compensation= Spread out at rate of earnings per year.]
§  Where there is neither a specified term under the contract nor a specified amount allocated as compensation, the compensation is spread out for 3 years.[Unspecified Term + Unspecified Compensation= Spread Out evenly for three years]
Revision Notes
The distinction Between Contract of Service and Contract for Services
The line between whether an individual is employed or self-employed is a grey one. Generally;
§  A contract of service between two parties implies a contract of employment exists
§  A contract for service between two parties implies the self-employed status of the service provider.
The key issue is that a contract of service obliges the employer to operate PAYE as the employee is taxable and the employer carries all the associated tax responsibilities. Under a contract for service the individual is liable to tax and the person making the payment to him has no responsibilities associated to tax with regards to that transaction.
There are certain tests that have been applied to determine whether an individual is employed or self-employed and they include;
1.     The Control Test
2.    The Supplier’s Own Business Test
3.    The Economic Test
The Control Test: To determine the relationship between the two parties the element of control that the employer can exercise over the employee must be reviewed. In the Irish case Roche v Kelly [1969] IR 100 it was held that the right of the master to direct the servants as to what and how the work is to be done was a main factor in determining the relationship between the parties. The case arose out of an injury suffered by an individual during the construction of a barn for a farmer. The question was whether the injured party was an employee of the farmer. The right to interfere with how the individual carried out their work and the fact that the farmer did not exercise control over the individual were important findings and became known as the control test.
It is not always clear whether this level of control applies, as was demonstrated in a later Irish case of Re Sunday Tribune [1984] HC. The difficulties in the control test were recognized where skilled workers were told what to do but not how to do it. In this case two journalists were doing similar work. The distinction was in how the work was done by each journalist. It was held that one was an integral part of the Sunday Tribune while the other was a freelance contributor.
Obviously further clarification was required and additional tests were laid down following the case of Ready Mix Concrete (SE) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 i.e.
§  Mutual Obligations Test- If there is no obligation on the employer to offer work or on the other party to do work, there is no contract of service.
§  Whether the employee agrees that he will be subject to the other’ s control expressly or impliedly to a sufficient degree to make the other party his employer.
§  Whether the provisions of the contract are consistent with it being a contract of service
In this case the individuals had been previously employed as drivers by Ready Mix Concrete. They entered into a different relationship; they leased the lorries under one contract and agreed to deliver concrete under another contract for the company. Their new obligation was to deliver in their own lorries. The drivers were determined to have contracts for service and be taxed as self-employed.
The Supplier’s Own Business Test: A major difference in employed v self-employed is the question of the performance of the service as a person in business on their own account. The UK case of Market Investigations Ltd. V Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 established some important factors in considering if a contract of or for service exists, namely:
§  Does the person performing the services supply his equipment?
§  Can he hire his own helpers?
§  What opportunity does he have to make a profit?
§  To what extent does he carry the responsibility for investment/management?
If the individual supplies the equipment, the staff, takes the risk and manages the business he is acting in the capacity of self-employed and not employee.
The Intention of the Parties: The facts of each case will determine whether the contract is of or for service. However, the intentions of the parties cannot be overlooked and may be important.
The Economic Test: The case of Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd. V Minister for Social Welfare[HC 1995] [SC11998] 1 IR 34 considered various tests and criteria in determining the status of the contract. It introduced the economic test which examines if the individual is economically independent from the person requiring the work to be done.
The case related to the status of a supermarket demonstrator whose job was to offer free samples to shoppers. The demonstrator was paid by the supplier of the free samples. Tests applied were:
§  Control test- the demonstrator was found to be under the control and direction of and could be dismissed by the employer.
§  Integration test- (integral to the business) she was considered to be an integral part of the supplier’s business.
§  Own Business test- she was found not to be in business. She could not profit from her services.
§  Economic test- the engagement terms were consistent with those of a contract of service. She was not supplying equipment, or taking risk.

·         Marina et al. (2002) argue that, “taxation is the only known practical manner for collecting resources in order to finance public expenditure for goods and services consumed by any citizenry”.
·         Taxation in Kenya is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act Cap 470- Laws of Kenya.
·         Prior to this taxation was governed by the East African Management Act of 1958 which was in force in all three East African countries until the EAC split.
·         Income tax is a direct income.
·         Every person with a taxable income is required to have a Personal Identification Number [PIN]. It is a personal number given to any person with an income chargeable to income tax.
·         The law also makes it mandatory to have a PIN for certain transactions which are listed in the Act such as motor vehicle transfers, clearing of goods with the customs service department, new installation of water and electricity metres among others.
·         Methods of collecting tax:
o   Pay As You Earn[PAYE]
o   Withholding tax
o   Instalment tax
o   Advance tax
o   Presumptive Income Tax [PIT]
o   Direct payments to the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes for balance of tax and arrears
Pay As You Earn [PAYE]
·         Method of collecting tax at source from individuals in gainful employment.
·         The employers will deduct tax according to the prevailing rates of tax from their employee’s salary or wages on each pay day for a month then remit the tax to the Paymaster- General through the laid down procedure on or before the 9th day of the following month.
·         The employee thus has no extra liability to pay at the end of the year unless he has income from other sources including other employments
·         PAYE tax payments help to spread evenly the tax burden for those in gainful employment, throughout the calendar.
·         Every individual in receipt of income liable to income tax is entitled to relief known as personal relief, granted against tax payable and is not refundable to a tax payer.
·         Unutilized personal relief can be carried forward from one month to another within the same calendar year but not from one year to another.

Tax Incentives
·         For individuals include:
o   Personal relief
o   Relief paid on premiums for Life Insurance
o   Relief/deduction of interest paid on Mortgage for owner-occupied house.
o   Relief/deductions of funds deposited under a Registered Home-Ownership Savings Plan, Subject to a maximum of 48,000 per year.
o   Tax exemption on Interest accruing on housing bonds up to a maximum of 300,000 shillings
o   Tax exemption on contributions to registered provident funds and no charge to tax on the first 480,000 on a lump sum committed from a registered pension or provident fund.
·         For Corporations include:
o   Capital Deductions;
o   wear and tear;
o   Industrial building allowance in respect of capital expenditure on hotel buildings and other industrial buildings;
o   capital expenditure on Farm works;
o   Investment allowance
·         EPZs enjoy the following benefits:
o   10 year tax holiday from corporation tax
o   A lower corporation tax of 25% for the subsequent 10 years
o   Exemption from withholding tax on dividends and other payments to non-residents during the first 10 years.
o   Investment deductions at 100% of capital expenditure claimable in the 11th year after commencement of production.
·         The tax base is all items or activities subject to a tax.
·         It is important to distinguish between the potential tax base and the actual tax base.
·         Potential tax base constitutes a set of items that would be taxed if there were no special exemptions; whereas the actual base what is used, given exemptions and other benefits and it is often much smaller.
·         Tax base is measured to the shilling amount to which a tax rate is applied. •
·         The tax rate is usually defined as a percentage of a certain value - the tax base.
·         Therefore, multiplying say a VAT tax rate of 16% on a taxable item such as a pair of shoes (tax base) worth Ksh. 2,000, the total amount of tax to be collected from this purchase amounts to Ksh 320. •
·         Tax burden - refers to the amount of tax borne by an individual or a business.
·         Tax burdens vary depending on a number of factors including income level, jurisdiction and current tax rates.
·         It is worth noting that tax burden may not be the same as the tax actually paid because of the possibility of passing a tax on.
·         This distinction helps explain who has the legal liability of a tax-who has the “statutory burden” and who actually bears the ultimate burden of the tax-who has the tax burden i.e. bears the economic incidence of the tax •
·         The average tax rate is calculated by dividing the total income taxes paid by your total income. •

·         The marginal tax rate is the rate of tax applied to the last shilling added to your taxable income

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Does the Taxation System in Kenya Abide by the Taxation Principles? Kenyan Tax Law

Does the Tax system in Kenya abide by the Taxation Principles?
Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society[1]. It is therefore every citizen’s duty to pay tax. In fact in life two things are certain; the first is tax and the second death. As such it is mandatory to pay tax. However the tax system must follow some set down principles that enable it to be viable to the government and the citizens.
Joseph Stilgitz was of the view that a good tax system must follow the following principles;
1.      Efficiency
2.      Administrative simplicity
3.      Fairness
4.      Transparency
5.      Flexibility[2]
6.      Equity
7.      Certainty
8.      Convenience
9.      Productivity
10.  Diversity
Simplicity
Under this principle taxpayers should be able to understand taxation. It should be very easy and simple for people to understand it and know what they owe the government. Complexity makes it easier for people to evade tax or come up with laws to exempt certain people from tax. For example the 1st schedule to the Income Tax Act[3] has a number of institutions that are exempt from tax. Further section 7 and many other sections of the Income Tax Act is unclear and hard to understand and comprehend. To that extent the objective of simplicity has been broken.
Certainty
A tax regime must be clear and certain. Any ambiguity in tax law will always be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer. For this reason tax laws should be clear and simple. For example in 2015 Part 2 of the eight schedule of the Income Tax Act states that capital gains tax is to be charged at the rate of 5% whereas the Finance Act stated that the rate should be 7.5% this brought about confusion that led to a suit but the petitioners failed[4]. For this principle to be met every Finance Act should be extensively and adequately publicized in simple language, clearly visible and nothing should be hidden from the taxpayer.
Flexibility
Transactions are not always carried out the same way every time. Things change and methods advance. A good tax system must follow the changes that take place. There should be no rigidity in the tax system. For example in Kenya many people are now considering e-commerce as compared to the traditional physical trading. As such the tax regime in Kenya must be able to tax e-commerce. However, it is pegged by setbacks such as lack of proper resources to monitor the e-commerce industry[5].  
Elasticity
The government must be able to raise rates of taxes when it needs more revenue. This is so as to maintain a standard of service provision from the government. In Kenya taxes go up every year as the government always needs more revenue as such this principle is applied in Kenya. However such increments should be carefully adopted such that they do not cripple the economy.
Efficiency
A good tax system should attain economy in various ways; it can achieve economic efficiency in collection of taxes. The collection costs must not outweigh the tax collected. Further the tax levied must be economically efficient to the taxpayer. The taxpayer should afford to pay all the taxes and have sufficient cash left with him.
In Kenya there have been attempts to enhance efficiency by coming up with an online portal for electronic revenue collection, instead of having to physically go to the Kenya Revenue authority offices. To this extent economic efficiency is being enhanced[6].
Convenience
Adam Smith opined that ‘every tax ought to be designed so as to be levied at the time or in the manner as is most convenient for the taxpayer to pay’. A good example of this in Kenya is the Value added tax. It is only paid when one person is about to spend or wants to spend. Pay As You Earn is paid when an employee has earned income at the end of the month.
Productivity
Under this principle it should be productive in that it should bring more revenue. However this revenue must not be excess so as to overburden the citizens as this would be counter-productive. One tax than brings in more revenue is better than a multiplicity of taxes that are expensive to operate. In Kenya withholding tax was introduced to casinos but there has been no meaningful collection as there are too many loopholes[7].
Equity
Adam Smith posited that’ every subject of a state ought to contribute with their respective abilities in proportion to the revenue for the services that they are respectively enjoying under the protection of the state. This meant that every citizen of a country should pay taxes according to their ability but not necessarily in the same amount. It also implies equality of sacrifice that is the higher the income the more the sacrifice. The income tax rates are subdivided into different levels of income as such it tries to achieve this principle. It also equally fails as people who earn 35,000 and above are taxed the same as people who earn 500,000.
There are two types of equity. Horizontal equity, it implies equal treatment of taxpayer of similar circumstances.  Vertical equity, it implies unequal treatment of unequal circumstances. People of dissimilar circumstances should be treated fairly in terms of the taxable capacity.
Neutrality
Under the principle of Neutrality, the market economy should not be interfered with. There should be no practical interference with the market economy. Taxes should not interfere with the business community. They are supposed to bear the most minimum burden. The lower the tax the better for the businesses. In Kenya, this principle is not applied strictly as the tax system constantly interferes with the business community. VAT is not a neutral tax because it interferes with the business community.









Bibliography
1.      Oliver Wendell Holmes, http://www.quotegarden.com/taxes.html
3.      Income Tax Act
4.      Kenya Association of Stock Brokers and Investment Banks v Attorney General & another [2015] eKLR
5.      S. Patel, Challenges of Value Added Tax on International E-Commerce in Electronic Goods and Services in Kenya, RJFA, Vol.5, No.7, 2014; See also file:///C:/Users/Creative%20Labs/Downloads/12326-14718-1-PB.pdf  
6.      G. Maisiba, Effects of Electronic- Tax System on the Revenue Collection Efficiency of Kenya Revenue Authority: A Case of Uasin Gishu County. IJIR, Vol-2, Issue-4, 2016
L. Ochieng, Why The Taxman is Yet to Hit Jackpot in Gambling, http://www.nation.co.ke/lifestyle/smartcompany/Why-KRA-cant-bet-on-gambling-tax-yet/1226-3030548-c173aqz/index.html


[3] Cap 470
[4] Kenya Association of Stock Brokers and Investment Banks v Attorney General & another [2015] eKLR
[5] S. Patel, Challenges of Value Added Tax on International E-Commerce in Electronic Goods and Services in Kenya, RJFA, Vol.5, No.7, 2014; See also file:///C:/Users/Creative%20Labs/Downloads/12326-14718-1-PB.pdf
[6] G. Maisiba, Effects of Electronic- Tax System on the Revenue Collection Efficiency of Kenya Revenue Authority: A Case of Uasin Gishu County. IJIR, Vol-2, Issue-4, 2016

A QUEST AT REDEFINING JUSTICE

By John Kenga, LLB (Hons)
INTRODUCTION
Justice is a commonplace term that is used almost on a daily basis at home, at forums and at the office. It is a catchword in legal cycles and court officers especially advocates and prosecutors use it in making arguments to advance their causes in courts. Often you hear statements like, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” and “Justice demands that…”
HISTORICAL CONCEPTIONS
The term justice has since time immemorial preoccupied the minds of philosophers and scholars. These include Plato who was an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote down the thoughts of Socrates. In the Republic, he looked into the then prevailing perspectives on justice and dismissed them as insufficient. Plato, in an imaginary conversation with Socrates, Cephalus defined justice as “honesty in need and deed”. He seemed to suggest that justice was the same as telling the truth and paying back what one has obtained from others.[1]Even with that definition Socrates conceded it was not comprehensive as it could not cover all situations amongst different people in various places with certainty and exactude. Since the time of Plato, other philosophers and scholars belonging to different schools of thought such as naturalism, positivism and realism among others have attempted to define the term and their definitions appear inconclusive and contestable.[2]
THE CONVENTIONAL DEFINITIONS
The conventional definitions of justice are found in law dictionaries which espouse Anglo-American thought and morality. Justice is given a number of definitions such as the fair and proper administration of laws,[3] fair treatment under the law,[4] and a moral ideal that the law seeks to uphold in the protection of rights and punishment of wrongs.[5] From these definitions, it appears that justice is synonymous with fairness that is arrived at through the use of laws in settling disputes in society.
It follows from the definitions that the law is the agency, mechanism and instrument of achieving justice. This is however debatable because it is common knowledge that legislatures across the world have enacted laws that caused immense suffering and destruction to people and livelihoods. Law makers and enforcers of the law are sometimes motivated by expedience and convenience with the consequence that bad laws are the end result. At times laws are made with the object of protecting the status quo and also preserving the interests of the ruling class. In both instances, it can be vouched with accuracy that such laws are skewed and convoluted in favour of one section of society at the expense of the others. This conundrum calls for quests at redefinition of the term justice.
This essay will examine the dictionary definitions of the term and attempt to show how it can be redefined. In so doing it will seek to answer the following questions; what is the attempted “new” definition? Is it possible for an unjust law to be used to arrive at a just decision? How has the present definition been used to justify injustices in history? Each of these questions will be addressed in turn as follows below.
THE ATTEMPTED “NEW” DEFINITION.
It is argued in this essay that justice is ice! That is, whatever we know as justice has the traits of ice. Ice, as you and I are aware, melts into water when heated and turns back into ice through freezing. In other   words, justice is just that, just-ice! That is there are principles, tenets, doctrines, ideas and concepts that for many years were upheld as eternal verities only for them to be turned on their head when the heat of change made it difficult if not impossible to continue espousing them. The heat of change in peoples perceptions had turned them into something else!  
Justice may also be redefined to mean just as I see! ‘I’ is used here to denote state organs such as the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary and the officers manning them who perform their duties collectively as institutions and individually as elected, nominated or appointed representatives of the people. Therefore, when the president, the parliamentarian and the judge decides on a certain cause in the name of “justice” it may not always be just in the right sense of the word as fairness, equity, equality, fair play, morality, meritocracy and good conscience.[6] This attempted definition emphasizes the role played by an individual’s attitude, world view, interest, background and knowledge of world history in arriving at a decision or making contributions towards the making of a collective choice which has the force of the law. Justice is just that, just as I see it!
UNJUST LAWS AND FAIRNESS.
The question that arises and which needs an answer is, if justice is fair treatment under the law, can there be fair treatment under unjust laws? It is submitted that the right answer to this question is an unequivocal NO. This definition of justice is positivistic to the extent that it considers law to be what it is to the exclusion of other factors including its impact on society and how it was made.[7] As such it can be used to legitimize racism, slavery and slave trade, colonialism, and the despotic regimes of Hitler and Mussolini in Germany and Italy respectively.[8] Dictatorships elsewhere are equally legalized by this definition notwithstanding their dehumanizing effects on society. Therefore, slavery and colonial rule can be better explained as “just” by using the attempted “new” definition. They were as just as their perpetrators deemed fit, justice is just as they saw it! This was for instance, in accord with their plundering mission christened the “civilizing mission.”Circumstances changed when the victims of these practices could not take it anymore. They fought a bloody war to secure their humanity from the claws of the “big brother” intent on making profits by any means using all methods in total and flagrant disregard of their rights. Hence millions of Africans were pilloried for centuries and the continent plundered of any available resources.[9]
It seems also that the continued subjugation of women in the 21st century is justified going by the dictionary definition of justice.[10] Patriarchy and his brothers’ sexism, discrimination and inequality are embraced by the same definition notwithstanding the negative effect they have had in alienating and relegating more than half of humanity to the periphery.[11] Under the umbrella of patriarchy, women were denied the right to vote, the right to own and dispose of property and the right to be themselves as humans under the doctrine of coverture!.[12]
This state of affairs is also explainable using the attempted “new” definition. Subjugation of women has lived longer than any other system because the powers that were and whose vestiges remain entrenched in our midst have used the law to perpetrate and justify its continued existence. Laws denying women their basic rights were enacted by parliaments dominated by men, enforced by an exclusively male executive club and interpreted by a jury of men in white wigs!
In this pattern, there is a travesty of justice from the starting point. Parliament is dominated by males where there is no woman representing her kind and if present; they are a tiny minority whose voice is drowned in the chauvinistic tendencies of the August house! The executive club then proceeds with glee to implement such laws in a draconian manner and with an iron fist. Any real and imaginary intransigence is crushed ruthlessly. As if that is not enough, the jury of men in white wigs appears and rubber-stamps the justice…injustice initiated by honorable members…! There can be nothing like fair treatment under unjust laws, but who cares now that justice is as we, the learned justices see it!  
CONCLUSION
This essay has looked into how the term justice is defined in a standard law dictionary and noted the inadequacies inherent in the Anglo-American idea of justice. Just saying that justice is fair treatment under the law is skewed at best and paternalistic at worst. An attempted “new” definition was offered and it was also employed to explain major experiences that for eons were deemed just and justified and left indescribable scars on the face of the earth and on the souls of many people. These conditions imposed on humans by their fellow humans include the horrendous racism, the horrific colonial rule and the horrible discrimination against the womenfolk!
The challenge is for scholars of law, judges, law students, human rights activists and the members of the public to seek a unified redefinition of justice-a term, concept, idea, and ideal that has been used to justify inhuman conduct and practices on a large scale.



[1] Leo Strauss ‘Plato’ in the History of Political Thought ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (London, University of Chicago Press, 1981) p. 9.

[2] Dukor Maduabuchi 1997.Conceptions of Justice. Indian Philosophical Quarterly.Vol.XXIV No. 4: 497-512.

[3] Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition p.970..
[4] Bloomsbury Reference Dictionary of Law, 4th edition p.168.
[5] Oxford Dictionary of Law, 5th edition p.142.
[6] Duddington, J. Essentials of Equity and Trusts Law (2006).Pg 49-51.
[7] Curzon, L.b. Jurisprudence-Lecture Notes (1995) (2nd edition) Cavendish Publishing Limited, London.  Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rodney, W. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1973) Bogle-L'Ouverture Publications, London.
[10] Barnet, H. Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence (1998) Cavendish Publishing Limited, London.
[11] Supra note 10.
[12] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England Vol 1 (1765).

CHILD SOLDIERS: VICTIMS, PERPETRATORS AND THE IMPUNITY GAP

By: Ogbewekon Ruth, Llb

Abstract

                



Since the conviction of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the war crime of using child soldiers by the International Criminal Court (ICC), there has been an increased debate on the criminal liability of child soldiers. While the international community has repeatedly considered child soldiers as victims because they were enlisted involuntarily, one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that these children participated in committing the most heinous crimes known to man. In international criminal justice, individual players are either considered victims or perpetrators. Consequently, there is a question as to which category child soldiers belong. International criminal law, that is the Rome Statute, has sought to address this question by placing an age below which one is considered a victim, and above which, one is considered a perpetrator. However, in doing so, an impunity gap has been created. These are the issues that this article seeks to address.




     Who are Child Soldiers?
Incidences of child soldiers are neither new nor uncommon in the world as they date as far back as the First World War and the events thereafter. However, since 1998, there has been increased involvement of child soldiers in at least 36 countries.[1] One of such cases was the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which led to the conviction of Lubanga for War Crimes by the ICC. It was alleged that 30 percent of the militia controlled by Lubanga were child soldiers.[2]  Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a child as anyone below the age of 18; therefore, any soldier below the age of 18 is a child soldier. Furthermore, a child soldier is one who has not attained the age, above which they can voluntarily join an armed force. The age for joining the military varies from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, as it is often determined by a State’s Municipal laws. For instance, Tajikistan has by average, the lowest enlistment age at fifteen, whereas Argentina has the highest enlistment at age twenty one.
Furthermore, the United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) defines a child soldier as any person under the age of 18 who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity.[3] In International Criminal law, the Rome statute[4] sets the minimum recruitment age at fifteen and makes it a war crime to recruit, enlist or conscript persons under the aforementioned age. Impliedly, a person below the age of fifteen who was or is currently recruited, is thereby a child soldier under the statute.

                      Child Soldiers as Victims
It has been argued that any sort of military service, even voluntarily, by children below the age of 15 is a violation of the child’s welfare rights; and as such is contrary to their best interests. The International community has repeatedly shown reluctance to prosecute persons below the minimum age for crimes, opting to regard them as victims rather than perpetrators. This is evidenced by international laws which address armed conflicts, including International Human Rights law and International Humanitarian law emphasizing child soldiers as victims. The Convention of the Rights of the Child,[5] including the optional protocol, the African Charter on  the rights and welfare of the child and the Geneva Convention’s additional protocols I[6] and II[7] all suggest that children below the age of 15 have a right  not to be recruited to take part in hostilities. Therefore, those who are recruited have had their rights violated and by reason of this violation, are thereby considered victims. These provisions found their way into International Criminal law and practice. The statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)[8] and the 1998 statute of the ICC[9] both made it a crime to recruit and enlist persons below the age of 15.  
Additionally, Article 30 of the Rome statute is very clear where it provides that a person can only be criminally responsible where they committed a crime under the statute with intent. This brings in the issue of the mens rea, and the question therefore that should be asked is whether children have the mental capacity required to commit these international crimes. Karl Marx argues that one who is not free cannot be held responsible for their actions.[10] Extending his arguments to this context, a child soldier can only be regarded as a perpetrator where he has acted as a free being. This brings us back to the argument of whether child soldiers are really victims. Since children below the age of 15 are considered incapable of making a voluntary decision to join the armed force, it is assumed that acts committed whilst under that force are committed involuntarily and in the presence of vitiating factors, due to the absence of mens rea. Consequently, child soldiers cannot be considered perpetrators by reason of evidence of capitalization and manipulation by the adult, which puts them in the realm of victims. 

 Criminal Responsibility of Child Soldiers
It has been argued that the humanitarian approach which categorizes child soldiers as victims is normative and incomplete.[11] This is because it was developed without a true understanding of the nature of children.[12] According to David Rosen, one really cannot tell where childhood ends and where adulthood begins. This transition differs by context and is not as easily identifiable as international human rights and humanitarian laws make it out to be.[13] Rosen also argues, albeit controversially, that the majority of child soldiers join armed forces voluntarily, and as such are in control of their actions.[14] Consequently, the argument that child soldiers lack mens rea because vitiating factors such as duress are involved is a notion as opposed to being factual.
Another reason why child soldiers ought to be held criminally responsible is because it is in the interest of justice.[15] In as much as child soldiers may be considered victims, what cannot be ignored is the fact that they are perpetrators of heinous crimes. Amnesty International argues that any person who has been responsible for the commitment of international crimes ought to be held criminally responsible.[16] The rationale being that victims of these atrocious crimes want justice for their suffering, and failure to prosecute child soldiers who are responsible inadvertently is the promotion of impunity.  A demonstration of this argument was seen in Rwanda, where there was a widespread view in favor of prosecuting child soldiers responsible for the 1994 genocide. A Rwandan Save the Children Federation study found that the majority of public opinion supported the view that child soldiers ought to be brought to account for their actions during the genocide.[17] The desire for justice against child soldiers was strong, particularly from those who had fallen victim to child soldiers. It has been established that the underlying principle of the prosecution of persons responsible for international crimes is justice. Therefore, in achieving the said justice, we must not favor one category of perpetrators over another. No one wants to see persons; whether children or adults, responsible for the death of a loved one out, of the reach of justice, or protected by the very same law that ought to promote justice.


                      The gap in International Law
As mentioned earlier, International law does not consider children as perpetrators, and this position has influenced the reaction of the international justice system over child soldiers. In the past, the statutes establishing the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are silent on the subject of whether those under the age of 18 can be tried. As such, the eventual prosecution was on the discretion of the prosecutor. Although the Special Court for Sierra Leone was the first international source of law that allowed for prosecution of children charged with international crimes, the Court’s mandate that it would prosecute only those who ‘bore the greatest responsibility for crimes committed in Sierra Leone’ did not extend to child soldiers. In fact, the Prosecutor stated that he would not pursue child soldiers for crimes they had committed. These instances reflect the reluctance of the international courts to prosecute child soldiers.
This position influenced the making of the Rome Statute. Article 26 of the statute provides that the ICC has no jurisdiction over persons who when committing international crimes, were below the age of 18.  In light of the definition of a child by the CRC, the ICC has no plan to prosecute child soldiers. While Article 26 of the Rome Statute allows for impunity, when read together with Article 8, a gap in international criminal law is created. Article 8(2)(b) and Article 8(2)(e) of the Rome Statute makes it a crime to use persons below the age of 15 as soldiers in warfare. The implications of these provisions are that persons above the age of 15 can be recruited into armed groups. Considering that Article 26 of the statute only considers persons above the age of 18 criminally responsible, the question then is  what is to be done about soldiers between the ages of 15 and 18, who are responsible for serious international crimes.
In an attempt to create an international age for which children will be held criminally liable, the Rome Statute has created an even bigger issue. Following the victims’ argument on child soldiers, the statute has left a category of persons vulnerable to exploitation. Considering that it is not a crime to recruit persons aged 16 and 17, this age group is potentially at a risk of become the target of warlords and commandeers in armed conflict. What the Rome Statute has done is to push the jurisdiction to prosecute child soldiers between the ages of 15 and 18 to domestic courts; where the primary jurisdiction rests. It is important to note that this gap may be one which would be detrimental to the ICC. Bearing in mind that the jurisdiction of the court is complementary to those of individual states, where states cannot prosecute domestically, the ICC steps in. In light of this, we would have a category of persons who because of their age, are essentially above the law.  This gap in the International Criminal justice system is one which must be resolved if the ICC is to fulfill its mandate.
                     Conclusion

The question on whether child soldiers are victims or perpetrators is one which remains a contentious issue to date. They cannot be victims because this would impair justice and neither can they be perpetrators because, objectively due to age, they lack the mental capacity to commit crimes and are ultimately susceptible to violation of their rights. Scholars have suggested that perhaps we ought to have a special status in international criminal law for child soldiers. However, this may be problematic because it must be decided, whether the special status is an extension of the victims’ status or the perpetrators’ status. International Criminal law in a bid to resolve this debate has created an impunity gap for persons aged between 15 and 18.  There is grave need for the international justice system to address this issue, lest it commits grave injustices to both victims and the perpetuators. 



[1] According to Child soldiers.org
[2] http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=drctimelinelubanga – Accessed 15the July 2015
[3] http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/childsoldiers.pdf - Accessed 15th July 2015
[4] Art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and Art. 8(2)(e)
[5] Article 38(2) Convention on the Rights of  the Child
[6] Article 77(2) of Additional protocol I of the Geneva convention of 1977
[7] Article 4(3)(c) of the Additional protocol II of the Geneva Convention of 1977
[8] Article 4(c) of the 2002
[9] Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and (e)(vii)
[10] J Angelo Corlett, Responsibility and Punishment, 3d ed (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2006)
[11] 
[12] ibid
[13] David Rosen, ‘Child Soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, and the Globalization of Childhood’ (2007) 109(2) American Anthropologist 296, 302
[14] ibid
[15]Liability of Child Soldiers under international criminal law” by Fanny Leveau (Osgode Hall Review of Law and Policy, 2014) 43
[16] Child Soldiers; Criminals or Victims? By Amnesty International (December 2000) 6
[17] “Child Soldiers: an exception in international law?”by Elena Batchelder (ICCSN, 2012) 68