AIADMK coordinator O. Panneerselvam on Monday complained to the Election Commission against the manner in which his party’s June 23 general council (GC)’s meeting was held and the way in which the June 27 meeting of the headquarters’ office-bearers was called.
In a nine-page representation addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr. Panneerselvam, who is at loggerheads with party co-coordinator Edappadi K. Palaniswami over the issue of the proposed replacement of “dual leadership” in the party with “single leadership,” gave an account of events leading to the general council’s meeting, apart from how the meeting was held.
He contended that though he and the co-coordinator [Mr. Palaniswami] had approved the draft of 23 resolutions to be adopted by the GC and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had restrained the general council from adopting any motion other than the aforementioned 23, a motion, proposed by the co-coordinator and seconded by organisation secretary D. Jayakumar, was adopted regarding the election of the party’s presidium chairman [Tamilmagan Hussain]. The resolution in question was “in clear violation” of the Court’s order. It had not been intimated to him [Mr. Panneerselvam], who was the coordinator, and “no approval” had been granted for the motion.
Mentioning that the first of the 23 resolutions pertained to the ratification of the Council for the election for the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator in addition to the remaining positions in the party, Mr. Panneerselvam said at the GC meeting, members were not given copies of the resolutions, as approved by him and Mr. Palaniswami, contrary to the usual practice.
Only one copy of a booklet, containing the 23 resolutions, was presented to him [Mr. Panneerselvam]. On perusal, a “completely new and altered” resolution was mentioned as resolution no.1. Also, after former Law Minister C.Ve. Shanmugam had called for the rejection of all 23 motions, “without any proper discussion among the General Council,” the members had rejected them.
He also submitted that if the GC did not approve the election of the coordinator and the co-coordinator, it became “illegal” as newly-elected office-bearers had taken part in the meeting for the first time. He also took exception to Mr. Hussain announcing the date for the next GC (July 11), which he did “without authority and against the bylaws.” He recalled how he and his colleagues had protested against the announcement. He added that he, being the party treasurer, was not permitted to present the statement of accounts at the GC meeting.
Mr. Panneerselvam also lodged his protest against the meeting held at the party headquarters earlier in the day, and he called it “illegal and unlawful.” He stated that neither the coordinator nor the co-coordinator had “convened the meeting or approved any decision” to be taken at the meeting.
