Monthly Archives: June 2021

The Central governments recent tussle with West Bengal over the decision to place the services of the chief secretary of West Bengal with the Government of India, with immediate effect, has stirred a political hornets nest. Beyond the din, the Centres decision raises some very troubling legal questions that appear to strike at the foundations of cooperative federalism and the independence of civil servants.

With the chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, barely having assumed her third term, the state found itself ravaged by Indias second COVID-19 wave and the destructive Cyclone Yaas. The chief secretary of West Bengal, Alapan Bandhopadhyay, was slated to retire on the May 31, 2021. Given his experience in handling the COVID-19 crisis, the state of West Bengal had requested an extension of his term. This request, according to the chief minister, had been acceded to on the May 24, 2021 with a three-month extension being approved by the Centre.

However, in a complete renege, on May 28, 2021 an order was issued to the chief secretary, West Bengal, informing him that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the placement of the officer with the Government of India in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 with immediate effect. The officer was asked to report to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) by 10 am on May 31, 2021.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and former chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay in the states cyclone control room. Photo: Twitter

From several media reports, it appears that the decision to recall the officer closely followed a meeting held on May 28, 2021 between the prime minister and the state administration, for the purposes of reviewing the post-cyclone situation in West Bengal. In this meeting, the Bengal chief minister reportedly made the prime minister wait for 30 minutes and then curtailed her meeting with the prime minister due to prior commitments. The chief ministers response was that she took the prime ministers consent before leaving.

While the officer, as per the Centres order of 28 May was directed to report by May 31, 2021, the West Bengal government did not relieve the officer. The chief minister wrote a letter that explained these actions to the prime minister, protesting against what she termed as a unilateral decision which was also historically unprecedented and wholly unconstitutional. The next twist in the saga saw the officer opting to retire and being appointed an advisor to the chief minister. By late night of May 31, the Centre had predictably initiated action against the officer, now caught in the crossfire, by issuing a show cause notice.

Also read: Indefensible: Former Bureaucrats Slam Centres Unilateral Move to Transfer Bengal Chief Secy

Undermining federalism

In this backdrop, what are the legal implications of this whole episode? The order being passed without following the procedure prescribed by the very Rule it was passed under, is the first legal infirmity one observes. Rule 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) 1954 Rules, under which the officer has been recalled, requires the concurrence of the state government in matters of deputation. It states that:

A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the state governments concerned and the Central government, be deputed for service under the Central government or another state government.

Thus, seeking the concurrence of the state government before taking this step is a prerequisite under the Rule. The rule also has a proviso which states that in the event of a disagreement the matter shall be decided by the Central government. However, it is hard to foresee a disagreement if the concurrence of the state government was never even sought in the first place.

This means, that without following the procedure prescribed under the Rule, the Central government assumed a lack of concurrence, and proceeded to pass an order of deputation. This course of action makes the sub-section meaningless and puts the cart of the proviso before the horse of the sub-section. Placed with the course of events it almost seems that the order of deputation was retaliatory and motivated by extraneous considerations.

The whole exercise makes for extremely uncooperative federalism of the kind that has no place in our constitutional scheme. The officer was slated to retire on the May 31, 2021 and was given a brief extension after a consultative process. If the raison-dtre of the extension was the COVID-19 crisis in West Bengal and his experience in managing it, there was simply no material change in circumstances to warrant the deputation order. Even from the material available on record, there seems to be no particular need for the officer at the central level for a specific post. The order merely asks the officer to report to the DoPT in New Delhi by 10 am on May 31.

Also read: Modi Govts Move With Former Bengal Chief Secy Is in Sharp Contrast to History

Does this mean that any officer of the Indian Administrative Service can now be directed to proceed on central deputation with immediate effect, without even an attempt at obtaining the concurrence of the state government not to talk of the officers consent?

The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 observed that states have an independent constitutional existence and they have as important a role to play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union. They are neither satellites nor agents of the Centre. In the same case the court observed the federal principle to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution that is immune from even constitutional amendment. In Swaraj Abhiyan (V) v. Union of India, (2018) 12 SCC 170 the Supreme Court described cooperative federalism as a cherished constitutional goal.

In a country where cooperative federalism is ingrained in the constitutional scheme, a unilateral decision by the Central government to recall the chief secretary of a state during a pandemic seriously undermines federalism. There seems to have been no reason for such an order being passed, other than an alleged protocol violation by a chief minister in a review meeting with the prime minister. The manner, the haste, the infirmity and the timing of the order reeks of a colourable exercise of power by the Central government.

Lastly, it may be worth asking what message this sends to the officers of the civil services, whose job it is to serve the state administration while being politically neutral.

A punitive deputation order seems to have been issued in this case. This, followed up with threats of disciplinary action against the officer if he does not immediately report to New Delhi only paints a picture of an individual officer becoming collateral damage in a political dispute. How would this impact the morale of civil servants working across all states? More importantly how will this affect the independent functioning of the administrative service and the dispassionate and neutral discharge of duties by chief secretaries?

The issuance of unilateral deputation orders sets the stage for chief secretaries to pick sides between the state and the Centre. These are all very worrying signs for our republic already going through one of the most challenging times in its history.

Srishti Agnihotri is an advocate on record in the Supreme Court of India.

Read the rest here:

Centre's Tussle With Bengal Over Chief Secretary Reeks of Uncooperative Federalism - The Wire

Of the five natural elements (Panchabhuma) which comprise the world Earth, Water, Air, Space and Fire, it is the last which best describes the existing relationship between Delhi (Union government) and Kolkata (state government of West Bengal).

The most recent flare up is over chief minister Mamata Didi Banerjee cursorily attending a review meeting of Cyclone Yaas in Kalaikunda (140 km from Kolkata), chaired by Prime Minister Modi on May 28 about Cyclone Yaas, leaving it midway for another meeting in Digha (on the coast 139 km away), just to show who is the boss in West Bengal.

Caught in the crossfire, was Alapan Bandyopadhyay, chief secretary of the state, an IAS officer, who followed the chief ministers lead, allegedly on her orders a bit like a team walk-out. The calculated tactic had its desired impact.

The reaction from the BJP and the Union home minister was swift an enraged protest at the public insult to the prime minister. Subsequent opinions in the media, including from IAS officers, condemned the tactics of team Kolkata, even calling it an insult to the President of India, who is the appointing authority for an IAS officer and undermining of the constitutional architecture for governance.

Others referred to the norms born out of practicality, which dictate that when the PM visits, the senior-most civil servant the Chief Secretary is expected to remain available.

The formal response from the Union government consisted of twin blows- First an order dated May 28 transferring the chief secretary, who just days earlier on May 25 had been granted a three-month extension, on the request of the state government and requiring him to report to Delhi on May 31, 2021, the day of his superannuation.

When Mr Bandyopadhyay decided to retire instead on May 31 and joined the CM as an advisor, he invited the second action. A show cause notice was issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 for violating a lawful direction of the Union government which is punishable with imprisonment.

Two issues arise from this unsavoury tale of political and bureaucratic brinksmanship.

First, on whom does the burden of adherence lie to maintain a sense of forbearance whilst negotiating federal conflicts?

Clearly, it is dysfunctional for the highest level of political leadership to choose public events to settle political differences as team Kolkata did. The tactics used by team Delhi of punishing the Chief Secretary for the misdemeanours of his boss, the Chief Minister, is a double-edged sword.

It deters bureaucrats with a low-risk appetite from associating too closely with opposition leaders one observer termed it as hobnobbing. But it simultaneously, makes those who choose to do so, a highly prized political possession.

Continuance of this risk-weighted informal selection filter keeps the best apolitical officers forever trapped in low-profile assignments with the high value assignments going to risk-taking politicised achievers.

This strategy makes an apolitical bureaucracy redundant. Much better then, to let governments bring their top bureaucrats with them a bit like Mr. Bandyopadhyay- and take them with it once its term expires.

This will effectively kill the dominance of the IAS and facilitate the administrative restructuring of the top jobs in ministries, along professional lines, with contractual appointment being the norm, except for support staff. The IPS and IFoS are already professional services.

Second, is this the end of Sardar Patels ingenious innovation- a top civil service a well-paid, professional institution with constitutional protection- which has served as an anchor over the last seven decades, binding the fractured constitutional mandates of the Union and the States?

The answer to that question can only come from the Union government. The states are unlikely to mourn the passing of the IAS. They have their own administrative services which will benefit from the void created.

India is a quasi-unitary government with the Union government as the political primus-inter pares. It should not look for the political loyalty of bureaucrats serving in the state governments, who must necessarily look towards their immediate employers and not to the Union government.

Officers of the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, or the Indian Forest Service (together known by the rubric of All India Services) are not employees of the Union government, which simply recruits them and allots them to State Governments.

The role of the Union, thereafter, is like the parents of a married woman. The State governments to which they are allotted become their new homes. Like parents, the Union Government provides back-up support against any injustice done to them.

No AIS officer can be disciplined by the state government without the concurrence of the Union government. But in all other aspects- promotion, pay, leave, retirement and pension, it is the state government which shall prevail. The only caveat here is that at each stage, the AIS officer can appeal, in the name of justice, to her birth-parent- the Union government.

Under this devolved scheme of shared powers, the question of an involuntary recall to Delhi, without the consent of either the state government or the officer concerned, is as unjustifiable as parents recalling their married daughter without her consent and against the wishes of her in-laws, her new parents.

Practicality also demands that the chain of command must remain clear. The constitution gives primacy to the political executive, the collective wisdom of Parliament and the Judiciary. It is ministers who are answerable to Parliament for their departments. The bureaucracy, in any democracy, has at best, a subsidiary role to the political executive. So, expecting officers to disobey orders by their chief minister is impractical.

There are already good reasons why the AIS model should be rethought. But let us not do this venerable institution irreparable harm, by making it even more inefficient than it already is, by making them scurry around, serving two masters and satisfying neither.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

More here:

A problem called fiery federalism - The Times of India Blog

I am appalled at the gross insubordination exhibited by the outgoing chief secretary of West Bengal and the subsequent outpouring of sympathy for this recalcitrant officer by some in the IAS fraternity.

Just as there is a basic structure of the Constitution that is inviolable, there is a basic ethos of federalism which is the cornerstone of our constitutional scheme. It is painful to note that the actions of the chief minister and the actions of the outgoing chief secretary of West Bengal, Alapan Bandyopadhyay, on May 28, have dealt a body blow to this basic ethos, both in letter and spirit.

Our constitutional scheme clearly delineates the role and responsibilities of the prime minister. No doubt should prevail in anyones mind about the precedence the prime minister occupies in our constitutional scheme vis--vis a chief minister. This is not just a courteous nicety, but a foundational requirement of the Constitution of India.

It is inconceivable that a chief minister has not only wilfully defied the schema of the Constitution, but has also exacerbated a situation which precluded the prime minister from performing his constitutional and legal responsibilities, not only as the prime minister, but also as the chairperson of the National Disaster Management Authority.

What was witnessed in West Bengal was a collapse of governmental responsibility of the state government, orchestrated gamesmanship and break down of cooperative federalism. As regards the matter of recalling Bandyopadhyay to central deputation, all actions against him were taken in accordance with Rule 6 (1) of Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954. There should be no confusion on the powers that these rules enable the central government with, which is also the cadre controlling authority of All India Services.

What is rather disturbing is that Bandyopadhyay, as chief secretary of the state, did not advise the chief minister correctly in his official position, while the chief minister was writing a letter on May 31 to make his personal case. However, what is even more distressing is that despite the chief minister strongly pleading the case of Bandyopadhyay in her letter written on May 31, he has chosen to superannuate on the same day, even though he has been given three months extension.

That three-month extension was granted only after the state government of West Bengal so desired. Have the circumstances that so necessitated an out-of-turn extension ceased to exist that Bandyopadhyay has chosen to superannuate? One is constrained to ask whether his responsibilities to the state have now taken a back seat and personal benefits have taken precedence?

Some IAS officers sympathetic to Bandyopadhyay may feel that he was in a Catch-22 situation and hence cannot be blamed. They are wrong. The IAS and IPS have lost much of their reputation because the public views them as sycophants of chief ministers and ministers.

We all know that the prime ministers programme in the state is of the highest priority. The chief secretary, down to the concerned district magistrate and the superintendent of police, are personally responsible that all goes smoothly. When the chief minister left the meeting, why did Bandopadhyay go with her? Was it not his duty to stay back and make the scheduled presentation to the prime minister on the cyclone situation so that he could get a true picture and decide what level of central assistance is required? The officer breached protocol by leaving the meeting and this was a direct insult to persons holding high constitutional office.

Our democracy, the worlds largest, is encapsulated in a federal structure that ensures the harmonious functioning of the entire system. Cooperative federalism, which Prime Minister Narendra Modis government has been practising for seven years, remains the touchstone for working together. Any wanton deviation by a state or its chief minister militates the sanctity of such coordinated working. By making an invasive incursion in the review arrangements planned by the prime minister, the chief minister of West Bengal tried to arrogate authority onto herself which does not exist.

It is clear that West Bengal, historically known for its culture, respect for elders and hospitality of its guests, saw an inconceivable incident, where its chief minister created an unfortunate record of leaving the prime minister by excusing herself of other responsibilities elsewhere.

The chief ministers actions have not only undermined the established authority of the prime minister, but have also dealt an irreparable blow to the federal structure of our democracy. It is the governments duty to ensure a good bureaucracy, not bureaucrats who play politics. The action against Bandopadhyay under the Disaster Management Act is just the law taking its course. If someone violates a law, he has to face punishment.

Moral of the story: IAS and IPS officers, stop hobnobbing with politicians.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 4, 2021 under the title A breach of federal protocol. The writer is former secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, and former member, Central Administrative Tribunal.

Original post:

How West Bengal CM and chief secretary have undermined federalism - The Indian Express

Widespread banditry and other criminalities terrorising our corporate existence, right in the face of a helpless central police system would, again, validate our resolve that true federalism is the answer to questions of insecurity among other related challenges at the moment.

Before our very eyes, criminal gangs have gone brazen across states, eroding all public confidence in the Federal Government-controlled police, especially. State governors, who are the chief security officers to whom the people bequeath their trusts, deserve the latitude of state-owned police to ward off threats at this crucial time. It is gratifying to note that all of the governors have now built a credible consensus around state police, thanks to their helplessness at this time.

Clearly, the Nigerian Police Force, which is on the exclusive legislative list is an experiment that has outlived its usefulness. It is time to restructure it from the roots and give indigenous security systems, their self-funding and control a chance. There are so many writings on the wall now pointing at the expediency and urgency of restructuring of the failed federation. The Buhari administration should work with all the documents and groundswell of opinion on the decentralisation of police operations in the country. That is what will send a strong message to the people that indeed the Buhari administration would fulfill the promise of change his party used as a vehicle to ride him to power in 2015.

All told, the Nigerias leader should note that he has only few options to tackle the spate of insecurity in the country. Certainly, state policing in its organic form as in all federations the world over is the most urgent one he needs to tackle insecurity that has threatened to discredit his administration. The regular lamentation of the president on state of insecurity isnt a strategy. Our leader needs to address what most of the people are saying: that he should restructure this convoluted federation to reflect federalism we lost since 1966, lest we should be the last.

See the original post here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 32 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian

Kerala's Pinarayi Vijayan has said that he has written to 11 other non-BJP Chief Ministers to jointly take up the issue of vaccine procurement for all with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"Wrote to 11 CMs in the spirit of Cooperative Federalism. Quite unfortunate that Centre absolves itself of its duty to procure vaccines, ensure free universal vaccination. United effort to jointly pursue our genuine demand is the need of the hour, so that Centre acts immediately", the chief minister tweeted alongside the letter.

The letter was addressed to his counterparts in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telengana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Odisha, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Delhi.

In the letter, the chief minister blamed the centre for trying to absolve itself of its bounden duty to provide adequate supply of vaccine to the states.

Expressing his concerns about possible third surge of Covid-19 incidents indicated by experts, Vijayan stated, "If the burden of procuring the vaccine is left entirely or even substantially on the states, their fiscal situation would be in dire straits. Fiscal strength of the states is an essential part of a healthy federal set-up."

"If finances of the states are hamstrung, federalism itself will be weakened, and this will not augur well for a democratic polity like ours, he said.

Vijayan emphasised that the vaccine should be provided free of cost considering it as a public good the access to which shall be denied to none due to financial wherewithal.

He asked the Centre to take necessary steps to ensure that intellectual property rights, patent laws and conventions do not stand in the way of manufacturing the Covid-19 vaccine, which should have the status of a public good. He suggested the union government to explore options such as compulsory licensing.

The chief minister said he has had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi before, pointing out the merits of the Centre taking the lead in assessing vaccine requirements of states and floating a global tender by taking into account the needs of all states.

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Excerpt from:

Cooperative federalism in Covid: Keralas Vijayan writes to non-BJP CMs - Business Standard

During P.V. Narasimha Raos time, she was annoyed for appointing Dr. Chenna Reddy as Tamil Nadu governor. There was a war of words between the two. She demanded the recall of the governor but Rao did not agree.

Modi too is clearly not comfortable with non-BJP chief ministers. Just last month, he objected to Delhi chief minister Kejriwal showing a live COVID review meeting between him and the chief minister. Chiding him, Modi said, Let me say this is strictly against our tradition, our protocol.

Bad vibes between some chief ministers and governors are also not something new. West Bengal, Maharashtra, Puducherry and Delhi are examples where the chief ministers and the governors have seen a running battle.

Modi had been talking about cooperative federalism and competitive federalism as well as Team India. Cooperative federalism is a concept which reflects the relationship between the Centre and the states where both come together and resolve common problems.

Modi was successful last year when he took the chief ministers on board to implement his COVID strategy. But in 2021, with elections to five states, politics took over. Non-BJP states have complained about the scarcity of oxygen and vaccination shortage and some like the Delhi government have even gone to court.

Continue reading here:

PM Modis discomfort with non-BJP CMs is hurting the very concept of cooperative federalism - National Herald

Sultan seeks immunity clause removal, role for monarchsAkeredolu wants Senate scrapped

Segun James in Lagos, Christopher Isiguzo and Gideon Arinze in Enugu, Seriki Adinoyi in Jos, James Sowole in Akure and Segun Awofadeji in Bauchi

The clamour for federalism, local government autonomy, community policing and devolution of power dominated the nationwide public hearings conducted yesterday by the House of Representatives Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution.

However, while the Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Alhaji Saad Abubakar, called for the removal of the immunity clause in the constitution, the Ondo State Governor, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu , advocated the scrapping of the Senate to make the federal legislature unicameral, as one of the ways of reducing the cost of governance.

Plateau, Benue and Nasarawa states have also unanimously demanded devolution of power in a manner that the states will be given more powers and finance considering their enormous responsibilities.

At Akure, one of the two venues of the public hearing for the South-west zone, Akeredolu said devolution of powers, true federalism, state police, among others, as presented last week to the Senate Committee on Constitutional Review were germane in restructuring the country.

Akeredolu, who was represented by his deputy, Mr. Lucky Ayedatiwa, also advocated that membership of the National Assembly should be part-time.

He said: The membership of the (National) Assembly should be part time. No member should earn allowances not known to the Revenue Mobilisation and Allocation Committee and, more importantly, people they claim to serve.

Legislators should earn under a uniform salary structure. Allowance peculiarities must not be about obscenity. The Senate should be scrapped. The House of Representatives too should not be unwieldly. A maximum of four representatives should come from each zone.

The governor also advocated the decentralisation of the Supreme Court.

He said: The Supreme Court should be decentralised to ease the current burden of the appellate court.

In a true federal state, there should be a Supreme Court whose decisions are final in residual matters. The Supreme Court at the centre should concern itself mainly with issues bordering on constitutional interpretations and matters arising between and among the states and the federal government, as well as revenue generation by the federal government. It should also administer the National Judicial Council.

In Bauchi, the state Governor, Senator Bala Abdulkadir Mohammed, stated that Nigeria needed a workable and acceptable constitution to serve the interests of the people.

Such a document, he added, should allow for true federalism where Nigeria states are autonomous entities with power to run their affairs.

The governor also appealed to the House Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution to look into the various agitations of the state and reflect them in its report.

According to him, the participatory approach by the National Assembly in the amendment of the constitution is expected to produce a peoples constitution that will address the social-economic problems in the country.

He added that Nigeria must break from the command structure imposed on the country by the defunct military government, which concentrated enormous power at the centre as manifested in the 1999 Constitution.

The constituent units of the Nigerian federation represented by the current 36 states, the FCT and the 774 local government areas are near to the people that must be given enough powers with resources in order to positively impact the lives of the people at the grassroots, he stated.

In Lagos State, the Governor, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu, restated his calls for a special economic status for the state owing to its status and the economic epicentre of the nation and the burdens it bears.

He said at the South-west zonal public hearing that the continuous request for a special status for the state was by no means a selfish one, but stemmed from the interest of every Nigerian in the state.

He stated that progress and prosperity of Nigeria as a nation is linked to that of Lagos State.Earlier, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, while urging Nigerians to take the ongoing constitutional amendment seriously, had said the process of review and amendment would give the nation a near perfect constitution.

He expressed optimism that such a new constitution will resolve the issue of identity, political structure, human rights, administration of government, resource control, national security and so much else that has made our nation fragile and that has hindered our progress and prosperity.

He added: The 1999 Constitution is as a result of a hurried national compromise that Nigeria entered into two decades ago, just to allow the military vacate the political scene and return to the barracks. It has always been our intention that one day, as one people, we will return to amend this document to give voice to the yearning of the Nigerian people.

In Enugu, the Governor, Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, reiterated his administrations unwavering commitment to an egalitarian Nigeria where justice, fairness, equity and inclusiveness shall be functional directive principles of state policy.

The governor had declared the state governments support for amending the constitution to enhance the nations quest for unity and prosperity in an environment where justice, fairness and equity shall prevail.

Declaring open the South-east zonal public hearing in Enugu, the governor enjoined all institutions, civil society organisations, stakeholders and the entire Enugu State citizenry to stand up and be counted in this important national discussion.

Women groups, organisations and labour unions made varying submissions on how to improve the constitution.

Labour unions demanded autonomy for local government, the legislature and the judiciary for improved service delivery, autonomy.

Also, women groups called for gender parity and inclusion to allow women to participate actively in governance and decision-making.

Sultan Seeks Removal of Immunity Clause

On his part, the Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Alhaji Saad Abubakar, called for the removal of the immunity clause in the constitution, saying it will compel leaders to live up to their responsibilities.

He also advocated a constitutional role for traditional rulers, saying it was time Nigerians talk frankly on how they want the country managed.

Addressing stakeholders at the Kebbi zonal hearing comprising Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara States, the sultan attributed the crisis in the country to the relegation of traditional rulers as they were given no constitutional role to play.

He said before the Nigerian nation came into being in 1914, the traditional institution had existed.

He said: One of the controversial issues, which I feel strongly about is the immunity clause. When you are immune, nobody can take you to court as a leader and it means that you can do whatever you want to do. You can claim to be God.

But when that immunity is removed and you are made to live in a society where people are taken to court for abuse of office, I think our leaders here will wake up. Let us see how to tinker with that immunity clause.

Will it be better to give immunity to a few people or remove the immunity so that all of us will be equal? It is another food for thought. So, please dont hold back, speak your mind on how you want this country to move on.

Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa Demand Devolution of Power, Single Tenure for Presidents.

Meanwhile, Plateau, Benue, and Nasarawa states have unanimously demanded devolution of power in a manner that the states will be given more powers and finance considering their enormous responsibilities.

They also requested that the state governors, as the chief security officers of their states, be given the powers to control the police in their states to enhance quick and rapid response to crisis and crime.

They decried the situation where a state police command has to get clearance from Abuja to respond to crisis in its domain.

Presenting their memoranda at the North-central zonal public hearing in Jos, the three states also advocated a single tenure of five years for the president.

Presenting the position of Benue State, representative of the governor, and Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, Hon. Titus Ugba, urged the National Assembly to grant the demands of people seeking creation of additional states.

Plateau State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Chrisantus Ahmedu, and his Nasarawa State counterpart, Abdulkareem Kana, who toed the same line with Ugba on most of their demands, added that the three tiers of government could be reduced to two; comprising only the federal and state governments, such that states are given the resources to cater for the local governments.

Earlier, while addressing the audience, Plateau State Governor, Hon. Simon Lalong, had urged Nigerians to be bold, sincere and patriotic in their submissions to the constitution review panel in their quest for a greater nation.

Lalong stated that the much-talked about restructuring will be considered to ensure that the agitations and anxieties being expressed are addressed.

According to him, there are high expectations that this particular exercise will not go the way of previous ones which failed to address some key issues affecting the governance of the nation, leading to further agitations that are growing and in some way threatening peace, security and unity of the country.

I therefore appeal to members of this special committee and Nigerians presenting memoranda at this public hearing to see this exercise as a very important duty which presents another opportunity for us to build a Nigeria that we desire to see. We should take advantage of the platform to ventilate and make submissions as to what we want injected or removed from the 1999 Constitution to make it more people -centred, he said.

Like Loading...

Visit link:

Federalism, LG Autonomy Top Demands at Constitution Review Hearings - THISDAY Newspapers