NPF endorses suspension orders
DIMAPUR, JUN 1 (NPN) Published on 2 Jun. 2016 12:42 AM IST
NPF Legislature Party spokesperson, Yitachu has stated that the party
during its joint meeting on Wednesday resolved to fully endorse the
suspension of Lok Sabha MP, Neiphiu Rio and MLA Imkong L. Imchen from
the party’s primary and active membership till further orders.
The joint meeting was held with the NPF legislators holding offices and senior party functionaries of the NPF.
Yitachu said that the house also resolved to fully endorse the decision
of the party’s Disciplinary Action Committee and the subsequent orders
issued its president Dr Shurhozelie in serving suspension orders.
“We are of the considered opinion that the decision was taken in the
best interest of the party and also to ensure the stability of the
NPF-led DAN government,” Yitachu said.
The house also reaffirmed its
unflinching support to the leadership of NPF president Dr Shurhozelie
Liezietsu and the chief minister T.R Zeliang.
Yitachu said all the
members present at the meeting also reiterated its support to the peace
talks, to work out for an early and permanent settlement acceptable and
honourable to all.
Issues should be raised in an appropriate forum: Peseyie
Breaking his silence over the imbroglio concerning the NPF party,
Parliamentary Affairs minister, Kiyanielie Peseyie said any kind of
issue needed to be raised in an appropriate forum.
In a press note,
referring to the statements reportedly made by suspended NPF members,
that their demand for change of leadership within the party cannot be
termed or considered as anti-party activities, Peseyie said if such was
the case, it should have been made “within the four walls of appropriate
party forum-- CEC, or NPF parliamentary party, as and when the party
makes such notifications, and not in public forum, or through the
media”.
Elaborating on the way how political parties project or
choose a chief minister during and after the elections, Peseyie said
“when a duly elected leader is at the helm of affairs, repeated attempts
to de-stabilize the party-led government and also attempts made on
several occasions to divide the party set-up by organizing
concentration-like camps for the dissatisfied party MLAs etc., can only
be termed and considered as anti-party activity”.
However, if anyone
still demands a change of guard, outside the party forum, he said the
only platform was to seek for a floor test in the House. Such was the
case on February 5, 2015 when all 59 legislators voted in favour of the
confidence motion moved by the chief minister, he said while also
referring to Supreme Court’s ruling in the SR Bommai case.
Reminding
that all political parties are governed by its constitution and the
governments run under the ambit of law and the Constitution of India,
Peseyie said no legislator or party functionary was above the law and
the constitution.
As practiced, he said “if anyone crosses the
limits, show cause notices are served to them, and if replies
or/clarifications are satisfactory, or apologies made for misdeeds,
there are always provisions and ways and means for reconsideration”.
However, the Parliamentary Affairs minister said “if anyone openly
challenges the established party system, the only option left for the
party leadership is to take disciplinary action”.
He also pointed
out that such actions were not to be taken to the public domain for
debate and discussion in the marketplace, saying “such an action, in
itself, is an anti-party activity”.
On the issue of dissidence
within the NPF, which he was created by some people, the reconciliation
had taken place way back in April 2015.
“But surprisingly,
campaigning for change of leadership in the government and the party
continued unabated, all outside the four walls of the party forum”, he
added.
“…If such activities are not to be considered as anti-party
activities, what action can be termed as anti-party activity?” he
wondered.
Referring to the directive issued to all NPF legislators
with regard to their movement, Peseyie said this was done in order to
“curb unnecessary expenditure due to uncontrolled movement of ministers,
advisors and parliamentary secretaries both within and outside the
state, and to ensure discipline so that they do not go out of station
for trivial matters”.
Refuting the suspended members’ statement, he said this directive in no way could be termed as autocratic and dictatorial.
Such practices were procedural for proper functioning of the
government, Peseyie stated adding even the Governors are required to
avail prior permission of the President as and when they go out of their
states.
***KHOCHUNGTE AWGIN***
