Download Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability: England vs. Tanzania and more Lecture notes Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY /ACCOUNTABILITY
MEANING OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Ministerial responsibility means accountability or answerable of the ministers for any business of the ministry or cabinet. It is the constitutional doctrine/convention which requires the minister/cabinet to explain or account for the performance of the ministry or whole cabinet. Ministerial responsibility also means all ministers of the government are collectively or individually responsible or answerable to account for the performance of individual ministry or the whole cabinet. GENESIS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The origin of ministerial responsibility doctrine is England. It is the one among the of brain child of the Bill of Rights of 1688. Although the origin of ministerial responsibility is from the Bill of Rights of 1688, a true colour or profile of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility begins to appear and function in 1832. This was so because from 1832 it was very clear in England that the government of England was to maintain the support of the majority members of parliament for that government to continue rule the people of England. In order for the government to obtain majority support of the parliament the government was to account to the parliament on its performance every year. From 1832 it was clear in England I. A single minister or individual minister couldn’t retain or continue to be minister against the will of the parliament. II. All ministers (cabinet) or government must stand or follow together in the parliament. This means minister were to defend each other or one another jointly against any accusation from the parliament. This was beginning of ministerial responsibility as doctrine or convention. TYPES OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY There are two types of ministerial responsibility that is a) Individual ministerial responsibility.
b) Collective ministerial responsibility. INDIVIDUAL MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Individual ministerial responsibility is the responsibility or accountability or liability of individual or single or one minister of the government for poor performance of his/her ministry. It is liability or accountability or answerable of individual or single minister for the performance of his/her ministry to the parliament. Under individual ministerial responsibility the minister must account for or explain to the parliament of his own actions or the actions of any civil servants falling within his/her ministry. Under this doctrine of ministerial responsibility the minister is held liable by the parliament for poor performance, glossily misconduct for minister himself or of his subordinates within her/his ministry. Under individual ministerial responsibility the minister is held liable individually for poor performance of the ministry or any department falling under that ministry. The minister must explain to the parliament his own actions and performance or for the actions and performance of his subordinates. In case the minister fails to account for or to explain for poor performance of his ministry the minister takes the blame and he must resign. In England individual ministerial responsibility firstly occurred in 1954 under the incidental of the CRICHEL DOWN AFFAIR or CASE of 1954. In this affair SIR THOMAS DUGDALE who was the minister for agriculture resigned for misconduct committed by the subordinates under his ministry. PHILOSOPHY FOR INDIVIDUAL MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The philosophy of individual ministerial responsibility comes from the fact that the act of civil servants in the execution of ministerial duties is the act of the minister. So where the civil servant goes wrong the blame should be directed to the minister responsible. This philosophy was firstly stated in the case of CALTONA LTD V. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS [1943] VOL 2 ALL ER 560. Briefly the fact of the case was as follows; There was an order to requisition a factory which was made under the defence regulations. This order was made by assistance secretary in the ministry of works. This order made by the assistance secretary was challenged on the ground that it was not made by the appropriate
COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
This is the responsibility or accountability of all cabinet or ministers of the government together. It means that all members of the cabinet that is prime minister and ministers must approve publically and collectively the decision of the cabinet. Shall one minister fail to approve publically the decisions of the cabinet he ought to resign. He is not allowed to come out of the cabinet and declare publically that he is not supporting the decision or policy passed by the cabinet and still remain to be a member of a cabinet. In case the minister disapproves publically the decision or policy passed by the cabinet and he doesn’t resign then the parliament may pass a vote of no confidence against the cabinet or government. Lord Salisbury , one of the prominent judges in England has this to say in response of collective ministerial responsibility; “…For all that passes in the cabinet, every member of it (cabinet) who doesn’t resign he is absolutely and irreparably responsible and has no right afterwards to say that he agreed in one case to a compromise, while in another he was persuaded by his colleague…” It is only on the principle that absolute responsibility is undertaken by every member of the cabinet who after decision is derivered at, remains a member of it that joint responsibility of ministers to parliament can be upheld and one of the most essential principles of parliamentary responsibility established. PHILOSOPHY FOR COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The philosophy behind collective ministerial responsibility is from the fact that if a vote of no confidence against the prime minister is passed in the parliament the all cabinet collapse. It means where there is a decision of the cabinet all ministers must stand firm and together to defend the policy or decision before the parliament. The doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility is in practice more strong among the ministers. This is because the ministers are members of ruling party therefore they are responsible in party’s discipline. Under party’s discipline who disobey or disapprove the policy of ruling party/government will be dismissed from the party hence losing his ministerial post. Therefore normally all ministers collectively together support the policy passed by the government in fear of party’s discipline.
DIMENSIONS OF COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
There are three dimensions of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility. (a) Decisions of the cabinet are collective. (b) Discussion in the cabinet meeting is confidential. (c) Ministers publically are abiding to defend collective decision of the cabinet or else a minister has to resign. GROUND FOR COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The cabinet may be held responsible collectively on either of the following grounds, (a) Misleading the parliament by the cabinet. (b) Leakage of confidential cabinet documents. In America they call it TSD i.e. Top Secret Documents. (c) In expedient of cabinet or government orders. (Impractical orders). (d) Disclosure of government budget prematurely by irrelevant authority. EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The minister is not individually responsible under individual ministerial responsibility for every actions of his servant. There is a time that individual minister cannot be held liable for the actions of his junior servant. The following are those exceptions which the minister cannot take blame under individual ministerial responsibility as follows; a) If the misconduct or misbehaviour of the civil servant was conducted through delegated authority. That any civil servant who acts under delegated authority is personally responsible for maladministration, glossily misconduct and misbehaviour, allegation of corruption or abuse of power. This is because a person acting under delegated authority is taken to be a minister himself.
a) In 2003 the prime minister by then TONY BLEA allowed the minister to stay in the cabinet disputes in his opposition of Iraq war. b) In 1992, Mr. WHITE LAW , who was the home secretary didn’t resign despite defects police security which allows intruders to make a way into the bedroom of the queen. c) Mr. LENOX BOIDI, the colonial secretary didn’t resign despite the massacre occurred at Ola Campel in Kenya. d) In 1999 during the visit of US president in England the home secretary didn’t resign despite of the intruders to make a way into pares. Under individual ministerial responsibility the following are examples of ministers who resigned because were not ready to approve or accept collective decision of the cabinet. a) In 1951, DEVEN WILLSON and Mr. FREEMAN resigned over Labour Retirement Programme which was proposed by the cabinet. b) In 1958, THORNCROFT CHANCELLOR and his junior minister, POWELL resigned over Government Economic Policy of 1958 c) In 1990 whereby GEOFFREY HOWE resigned resisting Mr. MAGRETH THACHA policy approach to Europe and over Thacha’s autocratic cabinet style. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERSONAL BEHAVIOR IN ENGLAND As the general rule ministerial responsibility calls up the minister to be accountable for the parliament for maladministration of the government activities or ministerial activities. In England it is possible sometimes a minister to be held responsible for individual behavior. This is possible if the individual behaviour of the minister is against standards of morality of the Englishmen. The following are the examples of minister who was held liable for personal behaviour. Mr. Tan Harvey in 1958 Mr. Galley Breth in 1962
Lord Gerico in 1973 Mr. Cecil Parkingson in 1983 CONSEQUENCES OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY In England ministerial responsibility may result into the following; Resignation of the minister. Reduction from the salaries of the minister by nominal sum. Dismissal of the minister by the appointing authority. Passing the vote of no confidence against the cabinet. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TANZANIA There are both in Tanzania individual and ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility in Tanzania is both a constitutional and political ministerial responsibility. ORIGIN OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TANZANIA The origin of ministerial responsibility in Tanzania is from the philosophy of late Mwalimu Nyerere. In his book titled “ Freedom and Socialism” published in 1969, late Mwalimu Nyerere is quoted to have said the following in his speech while addressing the parliament as follows; “…Most important of all members of the parliament must not under any circumstance attack any member of a civil service in this house. If they believe a civil servant is acting wrongly and that injustice is in consequences being done, it is the minister whom members must call to account. Then it is his task to investigate and if necessary invoke the disciplinary proceedings against the government servant…” COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TANZANIA Article 53(1) and (2) of the CURT, 1977 is a leading provision in the CURT for collective responsibility. This article creates accountability or responsibility of the executive which is
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
Tanzania is the presidential state. The President of Tanzania is the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces as per Article 33(2) of the CURT, 1977. The president of Tanzania is responsible to the parliament constitutionally and responsible to his party politically. Constitutionally the parliament has the power to hold the president responsible to the extent of Article 63(3) of the CURT, 1977. The president may be held responsible for the parliament for performance of the government constitutionally and politically. Article 63(2) of the CURT, 1977 provides as follows; “… The second part of Parliament shall be the principal organ of the United Republic which shall have the authority on behalf of the people to oversee and advise the Government of the United Republic and all its organs in the discharge of their respective responsibilities in accordance with this Constitution …” Although the president may be held responsible by the parliament there is no any Article in the CURT, 1977 or any other law which gives power to the parliament to hold the responsibility or accountability for poor performance of himself or ministries or cabinet or poor performance of the government. The only Article in the CURT which empowers the parliament to hold the president responsible is Article 46A of the CURT, 1977, this Article gives power to the parliament to impeach the president of the United Republic of Tanzania and ultimate result of such impeachment is to remove the president from office or presidency. However power of the parliament to impeach the president is limited only in three grounds as provided under Article 46 A (2) of the CURT, 1977 as follows; If the president has committed acts which violate Constitution or ethics of public leaders. If the president has committed acts relating to the registration of political parties. If the president has conducted himself in a manner which lowers the esteem of the office of President of Tanzania. Article 46A (3) of the CURT, 1977 sets out the procedures to impeach the president. Therefore constitution setup of Tanzania doesn’t give power to the parliament to impeach the president of Tanzania for glossily maladministration of government or himself, misbehaviour and
misconduct. There was a time citizens of Tanzania attempted to removal or suspension of the President from office through court of law. This was done through the case of MWALIMU PAUL JOHN MHOZYA V. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1996] TLR 130; in this case Mwalimu JOHN PAUL MHOZYA filed a petition in the High Court for the High Court to issue the order of estoping the president of Tanzania at that time i.e. ALI HASSAN MWINYI and later on to remove him from the office. SAMATA J.K as then he was he held as follows; “…Although in Tanzania people are sovereign they cannot remove the president from office unless the follows procedure as articulated under Article 46A of the CURT, 1977…” EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY Exceptions to the doctrine as applied in England also apply in Tanzania. So there some circumstances the minister individually or the cabinet collectively cannot be held liable for the actions of the civil servants. Instead individual civil servant is the one who will take the blame. That circumstance which shows the minister is not liable for actions of his/her civil servant includes the following; I. If the misconduct was done by the civil servant under the delegated authority. II. If the civil servant has done something reprehensive which the minister forbear/prohibit to be done in that way. III. Where civil servants commits crime example ASP ABDALLAH ZOMBE and other officers who were accused in killing a people were responsible for their acts and not otherwise. LIMITATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TANZANIA I. There is no formal mechanism to enforce the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in Tanzania.
through Auditory of Value for Money. These permanent committees are formed under Article 96 of the CURT, 1977. The Article provides as follows; “…The National Assembly may establish various Standing Committees as it may deem appropriate for the better discharge of its functions. The Standing Orders of the National Assembly may provide for the composition and functions of the Standing Committees established pursuant to the provisions of this Article…” III. Formation of Parliamentary Selected Committees. This is the highest mechanism; this is an ad-hoc which means it is formed when the need arises. The committees will require on any allegations and come up with report, the report of the committee include recommendation to the government. Example of such selected committees includes the committee formed in 1996 known as IDDI SIMBA Committee to inquire into tax exemption Saga against the minister for Finance honorable Professor SAIMONI MBILINYI and his deputy minister. Another committee was formed in 2009 on Richmond Saga known as MWAKYEMBE Committee.
