Revoke appointment of VC within 7 days: NPF
NPF through its legislature party leader T.R. Zeliang and the Legal Cell through the Co-Convenor Vimeno Nakhro have expressed strong objection to the appointment of defeated NDPP candidate of 22 Arkakong A/C as the State Vigilance Commissioner (VC) and have issued separate ultimatum on the PDA government to revoke the appointment within seven days of their statements.
NPF legislature party leader T.R.Zeliang in a representation to the Governor of Nagaland, sought the recall of the appointment of the recently appointed NDPP candidate as Vigilance Commissioner (VC) by basing the demand on the Cabinet Resolution on April 9,1976 regarding the appointment to the post.
Among the clauses of the April 9, 1976 resolution was clause 4(a) which stipulated that the VC should be chosen from among retired judges of high court or senior/executive officers and equal to status and conditions applicable to Chairman of Nagaland Public Service Commission.
In the light of the 1976 resolution, T.R. Zeliang submitted that the appointment violated clause 4(a) and also prima facie suggests that the appointment was a political reward for loyalty to the ruling NDPP since the appointee contested the recent assembly election as NDPP candidate for 22 Arkakong A/C in Mokokchung district.
Zeliang also pointed out that the appointment of a political person as VC was a clear attempt by the PDA government to defeat the sole purpose of the 1976 Resolution(supra). He also cited the directive of the Gauhati High Court principal bench on May 2 asking CBI to enquire into the allegations of corruption in the construction of the permanent high court building in Meriema. Zeliang said it was a known fact that the appointee served in the Nagaland State Legal Services Authority(NSLSA) and the department of justice and law against which exist serious allegations of corruption.
He said the impugned notification was issued with “ulterior motive” and with the sole intent to use the office of the VC “for political gains.”
Zeliang further cited other relevant Acts –Central Vigilance Act 2003 and Assam State Vigilance Commission Act,2010 to buttress his argument to revoke the appointment and also suggested legislation in the form of Nagaland State Vigilance Act for the state.
He expressed the belief that the Governor will revoke/recall the impugned notification dated June 1 2018 with a period of seven(7) days or else has threatened to pursue the matter in a court of law.
NPF Legal Cell, through its Co-convenor Vimeno Nakhro stated that the appointment was in total violation of the existing norms as laid down by the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003. In addition, the Cell pointed out that the government had violated the norms of consulting the leader of the opposition( NPF leader). The Cell said approval of the leader of the opposition was mandatory. Further, the Cell reminded the PDA government that the Vigilance Commissioner was not a political but a statutory post.
The Cell therefore issued an ultimatum on the government to revoke the appointment of Mayang Lima retired Principal District & Session Judge within one week and follow the procedure for appointment.
NDPP says VC appointed after following due process
Amid controversy surrounding the appointment of Mayang Lima as vigilance commissioner, NDPP has justified the appointment as being in conformation with all prescribed rules.
NDPP media & communication committee disclosed that Lima was selected on the basis of his unblemished track record and integrity as a legal luminary and also as former principal district & sessions judge which weighed in his favour as being the person best suited for the post.
NDPP hit out at NPF for being in the habit of creating controversies where none existed and that that the appointment issue was being blown out of proportion to gain cheap political mileage.
It also termed the NPF spokesperson’s attempt to cast aspersions upon Lima by trying to implicate him with the ongoing CBI inquiry into irregularities in the construction of new high court building at Meriema as “unfounded and unbecoming of a person who himself is from the legal profession”.
NDPP said such wild a allegations against a person of outstanding track record, having no evidence to substantiate upon, was not only preposterous and uncalled for but also could even invite legal action.
On the NPF accusing NDPP of “playing Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”, NDPP reiterated that no FIR was filed against NPF president Dr Shürhozelie Liezietsu on May 22 or on any other date, either by Prasielie Pienyu, election agent of PDA candidate, or by any other member of the NDPP as alleged.
NDPP clarified that Pienyu was assigned by the party to act as official election agent of the PDA candidate in the Lok Sabha by-election and that he, in his capacity as the election agent, filed a complaint with Election Commission of India on May 19 against the NDPP president and not in his personal capacity.
NDPP also pointed out that the main issue was not the FIR being filed or about an individual, but about a “so-called senior most leader”, who was projected as a statesman by his party, and made provocative speeches on the ground of religion to incite communal disharmony.
It also said Dr. Shürhozelie’s speech was not only shocking but also unlawful, unbecoming and below the stature of a senior and responsible leader to be indulging in such an act. NDPP asked NPF to first get its facts correct from the authorities before making “baseless allegations” just to divert the public attention” from the ongoing investigation over the actions of its president.
NDPP further advised NPF to introspect its defeat in the Lok Sabha by-election and losses in seven out of 26 Assembly constituencies it won to the PDA instead of resorting to “baseless allegations and gimmickry to gain cheap political mileage by trying to divert the attention from more important issues at hand”.