BY SIMON SONA MAKIA*
The 2013 municipal elections in Cameroon ushered in a new municipal executive in Buea council. Since then, and as it would appear, too many things have gone haywire. Development has virtually stagnated as the presence of the council is felt nowhere, politics degenerated to the detriment of the followers of party that brought Esunge to power but most importantly, the municipal council has known nothing other than restive periods. Councilors have been known to trade insults, others have virtually abdicated and others have been sacked summarily either by concocted deliberations or acts that have grossly violated the law.
On the basis of these, I thought public opinion should be enlightened on what is happening out there and why Ekema should have been “IMPEACHED” a long time ago.
It all begins with the process of investiture of the list by the party that presents it. Research carried out by the author of this write up shows that at the level of CPDM, the victorious municipal council during the elections of mayors, will equally designate a group municipal leader.
His rule as prescribed by the party is to serve as a link between the party and the municipal council and the municipal executive.
The creation of a municipal group reiterates and reemphasizes the cohesion of the councilors of the party and their subservience thereto. It equally underlines the primacy of the party in the designation of the candidate and their belonging when the list wins. As a result the candidates whose names appear on that list owe allegiance to the party in question. Therefore in examining elements leading to the election of mayor and his deputies who make up the municipal executive, it is important to recall that everything surrounding council business revolves around section 26-28. This sections states inter-alia that council work is done by deliberation (resolution). The municipal council is the deliberating organ of the council. Part 27 states that “the municipal council deliberates on issues provided for in the 2004/017 law of 22nd July 2004 on the orientation of decentralization and in the 2004/018 law on rules applicable to council.
A cursory look at section 30 (2) of law N0 2004/018 on the rules applicable to councils clearly stipulates that the municipal council during its meetings can only examine issues related to its prerogatives. One of its attributions is not the termination of the function of the mayor/ deputies which is the exclusive prerogative of the president of the republic. Nonetheless, in case of gross violation of statutory rules, the municipal council can recommend the termination of the functions of either the mayor or one of his/her deputies. The supervisory authority will appreciate the gravity of the situation and act.
Section 60 (2) specifies the mode of election of mayors. Section 60 (3) specifies the mode election of deputy mayor. The important thing to note here is that all of them are voted by the same Electoral College even if their modes of designation and voting slightly alter.
TERMINATION OF MAYOR
Section 94 states very unequivocally that in case of the violation of laws and regulations in force, or serious fault, mayors and the deputies, after haven been heard or haven replied to queries on issues raised against them can be suspended for not more than three months by the minister in charge of regional and local authorities. Section 94 (4) states that sacked mayors will retain their positions as municipal councilors
But mayors can see their functions terminated for misappropriation of public funds, criminal offences or serious faults in the exercise of their functions.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOCAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
In a case where the incompetence of the local supervisory authority is established, he directs as the law states to the competent level i.e. the minister in charge of regional and local authority as prescribed in section 98-103.
The local supervisory authority has his hand knowledge of what’s obtains in his area of supervision. Its indifference and complacency can generate catastrophic effects. During the meeting where the 4thdeputy mayor was purported to have been sacked, the supervisory authority was either present or represented.
CAN A MAYOR TERMINATE THE FUNCTIONS OF A DEPUTY MAYOR OF A COUNCILOR?
The mayor is just first amongst equals. He has neither the right nor the prerogative to terminate the functions of his/her deputy or a councilor. If a councilor fails to attend three consecutive sessions without justification, it can be considered as having resigned by the minister in charge of regional and local authority and NOT THE MAYOR. The representative of state is copied and the concerned is informed. The decision can be challenged in a competent court. (section 48 of 2004/018 law). Article 48 does not apply to deputy mayors.
RECOURSE TO JUSTICE
The 2006 law in the organization and functioning of regional administrative tribunals will entertain what one would qualify as excesses related to administrative acts.
Some time ago, the mayor of Buea would have been seen to have terminated the functions of his fourth deputy mayor. It was said that he even barred her entry in to the council premises. What the author of this article does not know is whether the state intercepted the flow of her salary. Naturally the mayor would have terminated the flow of her allowances since he orders the payment.
But what the public should know is that the existence of legal instances like the regional administrative court is to seek redress for excesses as noticed by the people. He has committed several acts that are not inconsonance with the law.
Instead of avoiding him, the court should be used to seek redress.
WHAT THE MAYOR CANNOT DO IN HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS DEPUTIES, COUNCILORS AND WORKERS
The mayor’s relationship with his deputies would appear to be hierarchical. It means that they report to him. But certain things should be made clear. Delegation of competence was prescribed by a prime ministerial decree and not the mayor’s prerogative.
Salaries of deputy mayors are paid by the state and not the council. Their allowances are paid by the council but the amounts are prescribed by the state and adopted by the municipal council through a deliberation of the municipal council.
The deputies as well as the mayor are civil status registrars. In this domain; none is subordinated to the other. The mayor can only help to organize their functioning.
Deputy Mayors are not employees of the council. They are members of the municipal executive as much as the mayor. They are not advanced or reclassified. Their performances and output are not appreciated by the mayor.
For the municipal councilors, they make up the deliberating organ of the council, which is the policy and decision make body of the council. The mayor and his deputies execute their resolutions/ orders.
The mayor recruits, manages and terminates council personnel. The mayor might be fooled by this and neglect other provisions. By the provision of section 26 (2) council work is done by deliberation. It implies that for the mayor recruit, there should be and existing organizational structure adopted by the municipal council and approved by the supervisory authority. It is the only way to justify recruitments. Section 70 of law N0 2004/018 on rules applicable to council’s states that deliberations related to recruitment of workers should be approved a priori by representative of the state before the recruitment. The notice to recruit should be published in public places.
In this case if the mayor needs by all means an authorization to recruit, he will equally require authorization to terminate. There is a certain category of workers that are recruited by the authorization of the representative of the state and another category by the minister in charge of regional and local authorities.
The mayor cannot therefore as a result of his mood of or for any other reason terminate his worker without an approval from the same authority that approved the recruitment.
It is in the best interest of mayors to properly study the legal instruments involved when they certain actions and decisions.
Councils are put in place to satisfy general interest. Decisions taken should be seen to satisfy general interest.
The author is an expert in Decentralization, Local Governance and Development. He is current Municipal Treasurer, Nguti Council and Councillor, Muyuka Council