Timothy Tot's statement to SRS

Thanks for Abu Deng and the forum for bringing to my attention Hon. Timothy Tot's statement to SRS. Let me first quote Article 170(4) of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan 2005, on the removal of the Governor of a State. Quote:

170 (4) (a) The state legislature may, in accordance with the state constitution,

pass a vote of no confidence in the Governor

by three quarters majority of all its members;

(b) Should the state legislature pass a vote of no confidence as stated in

paragraph (a) above, the President of the Government of Southern

Sudan shall make a request to the President of the Republic calling for

snap elections of the Governor. The President of the Republic shall act

upon such a request and shall call the state electorate for snap elections

of the Governor to be conducted within sixty days;

(c) The Governor elected in the snap elections shall serve for the

remainder of the original tenure;

(d) Should the Governor who was subjected to the vote of no-confidence

be re-elected, the state legislature shall be deemed to have been

dissolved. A new state legislature shall be elected within sixty days to

complete the tenure of the dissolved legislature; and

(e) A vote of no confidence in the Governor shall not be passed before he

or she completes twelve months in office.

Unquote.

This is a well thought of and delicate balance of powers between the legislature and the executive in which, if there arises a crisis between them, the final arbiter is the people of the State who elected both the Governor and the State legislative Assembly. According to this provision, if the Governor is seen not to deliver, and in the view of the drafters (sub-section (e) above) you need about a year to be able objectively to determine that, the State Legislatively Assembly may remove the Governor by three quarters majority of all its members. Then, the matter goes back to the people (sub-section (b) above) to decide whether the SLA was right (in this case, the removed Governor would not be re-elected) or the Governor was right (and in this case, he gets re-elected) and as a result the SLA is dissolved (sub-section (d) above).

This article provides for a democratic method for settling disputes between the Governor and the SLA which maintains the power of the people of the State in deciding who rules them without intervention from outside the State. This is federalism par excellence.

This provision should have been maintained in the transitional constitution, with sub-section (b), for the sake of relevance, to be rewritten as follows:

(b) Should the state legislature pass a vote of no confidence as stated in paragraph (a) above, the President of the Republic shall call the state electorate for snap elections of the Governor to be conducted within sixty days.

Therefore, there was no shortage of constitutional mechanisms to settle disputes within a state in the ICSS. The only explanation for the new provisions in the Transitional Constitution is to be found in wanting to concentrate powers in the hands of the President at the expense of federalism that Southerners fought for since early 1950s. The question that imposes itself is: who determines whether there is "a crisis in a state that threatens national security and territorial integrity", which is given as the condition for dismissing the Governor or dissolving the state assembly? Of course, if there was a situation like that the President of the Republic would declare a state of emergency in that particular state in accordance with the article on the declaration of the state of emergency. So, the argument does not hold water. For sure, it is not true that a State Governor is elected with the consent of the President, as Hon. Tot asserts.

If what Hon. Timothy Tot says, that the article will not be applied, then why all this insistence from the President of GoSS to pass it without amendment?

Nobody will convince anybody that an elected Governor or SLA can be got rid of without involving the electorate who elected them in the first place, and you still talk of democracy and federal system.

Powers Of President In Draft Transitional Constitution Conditional

• News from Sudan Radio Service

9 June 2011-(Juba) -Members of parliament mandated to study the draft transitional constitution say the powers of the president to relieve governors are conditional.

The chairperson of the executive and legislative cluster said that the president can relieve a state governor only when there is a crisis in the state that undermines national security.

Timothy Tot Chol spoke to SRS on Thursday in Juba.

[Timothy Chol] - "We found that in the interim period, from 2005 until now, some governors sometimes misuse these powers to the disadvantage of people of that state. There were quarrels; there were disagreements which sometimes led to lack of stability in some states. Now, it was thought by the drafters of the interim constitution that there must be a power above the states and governors who can intervene in the event of any quarrel in a state. By the way, those quarrels could even jeopardize the tranquility and the harmony and even the national security of the new republic unless there is a super power which can intervene."
Article 101 (R) of the draft transitional constitution says that the president has the powers to remove a state governor, and/or dissolve the state legislative assembly in the event of a crisis in a state that threatens national security and territorial integrity.

Mister Tut said the president cannot exercise this power unnecessarily.

[Timothy Chol]:"It is a conditional power which is rarely or which will be rarely used, you see. Unless there is this situation or this situation arises where the national integrity and national security is being threatened, I don't think the president can exercise such a power. So there is unjustified fear that the president may use it to get of the people he does not like. But I don't think it can happen because in the first place, the governors are elected by the people with the consent of the president himself."

Mister Tot said the constitution does not specify whether a state governor relieved by the president could contest in elections.

He however said that logically, a governor, when relieved under such circumstances could not contest anymore.