Demands revocation of vigilance commissioner’s appointment
Dimapur, June 4 (EMN): Drawing attention to the government appointing retired principal district & session judge Mayang Lima as vigilance commissioner of the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission, opposition leader TR Zeliang has stated that said post was created through a cabinet resolution on April 9 1976.
In a letter addressed to the governor of Nagaland, Zeliang claimed that the government in its wisdom had decided to equate the status of the state vigilance commissioner with that of the chairman of Nagaland Public Service Commission.
The former chief minister said that the state Vigilance Commission should be a high-level commission headed by a retired high court judge or retired senior executive officer independent of government departments with autonomous status like the state public service commission.
Zeliang pointed out that the resolution had assigned the state vigilance commission with ‘heavy responsibilities and duties which were more serious than what had been assigned with the state public service commission.’
Zeliang has challenged the appointment of Mayang Lima as vigilance commissioner, on the following grounds: the impugned notification was issued in ‘clear violation of clause 4 (a) of the resolution as the appointee was neither a retired high court judge nor a retired senior executive officer.’
Further, the opposition leader stated, the impugned notification suggested that it was a political reward ascribing on the appointee’s political loyalty to the ruling the NDPP in Nagaland as Lima contested the 2018 general election as a Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party candidate from 22nd Arkakong assembly constituency in Mokokchung district. He stated that the appointment of a political person as vigilance commissioner, in the State Vigilance Commission, was a clear attempt on the part of the present government to defeat the sole purpose of the resolution.
Likewise, Zeliang stated that the appointment procedures for vigilance commissioner in particular and the office of state / central vigilance commission in general was of great significance as it played a vital role in checking corruption. The statement from the opposition stated: ‘The appointment of a central vigilance commissioner and vigilance commissioners are: (1) The central vigilance commissioner and the vigilance commissioners shall be appointed by the president by a warrant under his hand and seal provided that every appointment under this sub-section shall be made after obtaining the recommendation of a committee consisting of (a) the prime minister as chairperson; the minister of Home Affairs as member; the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People as member.
‘The leader of the opposition in the House of the People shall, when no such leader has been so recognised, include the leader of the single largest group in opposition of the government in the House of the People,’ Zeliang’s statement stated. He was of the opinion that the impugned notification was abuse of ‘extent of executive power of the state.’
Considering the facts as prescribed in the resolution, the opposition leader declared that the authority should revoke the notification of June 1 2018.
The opposition leader has appealed to the governor to ‘convince’ the present government to bring legislation in the form of a ‘Nagaland State Vigilance Commission act’ in the interest of the people of Nagaland. Zeliang expressed full political support in the assembly to bring about said legislation.
Zeliang warned that if the authority fails to revoke the notification within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this letter, the opposition would approach the court of law for redress.
Also, in a separate letter to the governor, the Naga People’s Front has expressed discontentment at the appointment of Mayang Lima as the state’s new vigilance commissioner, a retired principal district & sessions judge. the party has demanded revocation of the appointment within one week.
The NPF has appealed to the authority to follow the rules and consider the matter according to provisions of the law. The party alleged that the appointment of Lima was in total violation of existing norms stipulated by the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003. The leader of opposition was not taken into consultation and that the candidate was a member of the NDPP who had contested in the recent general elections from 22nd Arkakong constituency in Mokokchung district, it stated. The party claimed that nepotism played a part in the appointment.
According to the NPF media cell’s statement that was received here on Monday, the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003, section-41 clause-1 of sub-clause that to appoint a vigilance commissioner, the approval of the leader of opposition was mandatory. The act has been violated by the authority, the NPF stated.
The NPF declared that the party was rejecting in the outright the appointment of Mayang Lima as vigilance commissioner. The party reminded the PDA (People’s Democratic Alliance) government that the vigilance commissioner was not a political post but a statutory post. The NPF expressed strong resentment and expressed regret that the opposition leader was not consulted as it was expected and that the government had failed technically.
Another press release on Monday from the NPF’s MLA Imkong L Imchen also slammed the Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP) PDA for what it called random appointments.
‘The govt. of the day proclaimed that it is committed to bring about austerity measures in the state by limiting expenditure from the State Exchequer by dispensing various unnecessary appointments and streamlining expenditures. However, it has started random appointments,’ the press release stated.
The press release was signed by Imchen, the spokesperson of the NPF Legislature Party.
The legislators had a meeting in the legislators’ home in Kohima on June 4 and reviewed various prevalent situations in the Nagaland, the press release informed.
The NPF stated that 13 non-elected persons were appointed in the capacity and ranks of cabinet and minister of state and the government was refusing to disclose the facilities being provided to them in the public domain as was committed in their policy of “transparency and accountability.” Except for removing nameplates, the NPF alleged, the PDA government had ‘increased VIP culture,’ the opposition lamented.
