Dimapur, Jan. 3 (EMN): The Mao Council has termed the verdict on the Koziirii (Kezoltsa) and Dziiko dispute by the Tenyimi Public Organisation (TPO) through its Board of Arbitrators (BOA) as “unceremonious” and “contradictory”, adding that it is under no obligation to abide by the verdict that has been arrived “without the basis of Naga (Tenyimi) customary law and practices”.
While claiming that the TPO had not accommodated its request for holding the meeting at a neutral venue, Mao Council said the TPO went ahead with the December 19, 2022 joint meeting under the cloud of Southern Angami Public Organisation’s (SAPO) ban.
“The manner in which the verdict was declared unceremoniously and hastily after 7 long years under the shroud of the ban on the Mao people by SAPO and the basis for the verdict given as ‘to accommodate each other’ citing lack of ‘primary and documentary evidence’ and not on the merit of the case is contradictory to the facts already made available with the TPO/BOA,” the statement read.
It stated that the Mao Council had not been handed the official copy of the verdict till date.
“We came to know of the rulings from the media and the social media. Due to non-receipt of the official copy the Mao Council has not been able to comment its position on the verdict thus far,” it said.
It went on to state that the verdict was declared in the absence of the contending parties and in the “vitiated atmosphere of SAPO’s direct defiance of the TPO’s notification for the December 19, 2022 joint meeting of the TPO Presidential Council and BOA”.
“The verdict was declared when the Mao people were under ban from travelling through the SAPO area and should have been deferred to a time when normalcy was restored. How can a verdict for resolution of a dispute be declared when one of the parties to the dispute is banned by another party,” it added.
Further, it said the December 19 verdict is “beyond and outside the purview of the mandate that the TPO/BOA was invested with”.
It said the TPO/BOA verdict had ignored the “very essence” of the arbitration undertaking to resolve the dispute based on Naga customary law and its usages (Tenyimi).
“The corner stone on which the arbitration process was established has been discarded stating lack of ‘primary evidence’, ‘evidentiary documents’, non-indication of total area of land claimed by the contestants at Koziirii/Kezoltsa/Kazing, ‘only based on oral testimony’, ‘all the claimants not sure of the
“The merit of the case, be it in Tenyimi customary laws or natural law, has not been looked into in spite of having engaged all concerned with the dispute for almost seven years. Thus the verdict has been blatantly manipulated into a compromise formula when such was not feasible nor tenable on the ground,” read the statement.
Meanwhile, it stated that all the members of the BOAs were asked to narrate the respective traditional practice for administration of oaths in disputes.
“Towards the end, in the BOA exercise, three options –division, joint ownership and oath taking — were discussed at length as per the BOA communication dated June 4, 2022. It was the general understanding that all the three contesting parties must concur on any one of the three options. A consensus could not be arrived at with both SAPO and Mao Council giving their written assertions for customary law and Maram Khullen being non committal,” it said.
However, it claimed that the three contending parties were neither party nor signatories of the verdict.
“We are doubtful whether the verdict had been drafted by the BOA officials, which is the sole authority for doing so, as the non customary spirit and contents of the said verdict were not agreed or decided upon in the sittings of the BOA,” it read.
“After all the narrations in the position paper, rejoinders, additional statements, field visits and illustrations on map, it is difficult to understand how the verdict of the TPO/BOA of December 19, 2022 was declared in its very form and substance at the end of the 7 years long arbitration process, professedly based on customary law and practice of the Nagas(Tenyimis),” it added.
