Disregard of the law may be quite costly

The seeming match play between Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) and the gaming industry may be revealing a blatant contempt of the very law that KRA preaches to uphold.

From past events are questionable positions that the regulator has taken in dealing with industry matters.

The High Court issued an order barring the regulator, the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB), and other agents from stopping the operations of the firms on June 30.

The operators would inform a recent Senate hearing that this order had been ignored and damaging directives issued to hinder business.

On KRA’s orders, Paybill numbers of some firms were suspended — despite a court order — shutting them down.

Since online gaming mainly relies on mobile money payments to transact, without it there would be paralysis in the sector.

But was this measure legal? Clearly, the pointers are to the contrary. And is this a tax dispute or a morality conversation?

True, the betting business has many critics and not so many fans as many blame it for irresponsible behaviour.

One truth in life is that all things should be applied in moderation, and this not only pertaining to “sin actions” such as smoking, drinking, and betting, but also basics such as eating and working.

Morality is not the issue here; we are not attending to the idea of eliminating betting due to its badness using measures such as frustration.

Were it the case, there would not have been any recent licensing of some operators.

There is lack of clarity in the matter. It appears to hinge on favouritism on one hand and frustration on the other.

This is the only way to explain why some licences are being issued as others are being withdrawn.

Business is meant to be encouraged and boosted. Our economy is in need of entrepreneurial successes, which will have an overall effect on domestic growth.

Disregard of direct orders from our courts and delaying licences exasperates businesses and the faith of wananchi and other investors in the government.

Withholding of a licence is not a legally recognised measure of resolving tax disputes. Neither is it part of the Tax Procedure Act, the guiding statute for tax administration.

A few months ago, the courts ruled in favour of Coca-Cola after KRA had claimed that the beverage manufacturer had not paid excise duty between 2006 and 2008.

The issue revolved around returnable crates and empty soda bottles. The KRA wanted Sh5.621 billion. The matter dragged in the courts for a decade.

The outcome of this case is not necessarily the issue here; the procedure in resolving the issue is.

For the years that the matter was in court, Coca-Cola’s licences were not withdrawn. Neither was the company ordered to cease production. It continued to operate.

In Kenya, tax disputes are many. But the first action has not been to shut down businesses or withdraw licences. So, what makes the KRA and gaming firms tussle any different?

The Judiciary is critical in the administration of law, dispute resolution and order.

People resort to taking legal action as a place of recourse and understanding that the system was built for their protection.

It is inexplicable that its orders are not being obeyed by certain regulators.

It would seem that the gaming industry now feels utterly vulnerable, as would anybody who seeks protection and cordial resolution.

This they have expressed on several occasions. A key legislator in the Legal Affairs committee of the Senate even questioned whether there were some arms of government that operated outside the laws of the land!

The industry is operating below par. Whether those betting operators who have now been licensed and are back to running their sites will have the capacity to take on the market 100 per cent remains to be seen.

It does not take rocket science to know that the economy would be better off with all players in the game. Revenue is being lost and livelihoods destroyed.

With the withdrawal of sports sponsorship, the sporting fraternity has taken casualties where the conversation should, ideally, have been how the industry can further partnerships in key sports development.

Even the most developed markets link with private entities to enhance sporting talent.

This matter, undoubtedly, creates panic in Kenya, where precedence of insubordination of the law and procedure is blatant.

Are wananchi protected and guaranteed of a fair opportunity to present and represent through a just system of law, or are there really certain arms of government that are exempt and therefore one should not bother to seek redress in the courts as they are already condemned?