DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATION
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA

COURSE CODE: LAWC 215

TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ASSIGNMENT
THE FAMOUS PEACOCK OF KANO GOOFED AGAINST THE
PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTING RESPONSIBILITY. ANALYZE
THAT PRINCIPLES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BRITISH
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AND NIGERIAN
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM.

BY
GROUP B

LECTURER NAME
DR. MUHAMMAD TUKUR JIBRIL

MARCH, 2021
 Group B Members

S/No Reg. No Names Signature

1. U18LG1051 YUSUF AMINA
2. U18LG1065 ALI UMAR ZURKA
3. U18LG1042 BAPPAH BAPPAYO BABA
4. U18LG1043 IBRAHIM SALIHU GOWMNA
5. U18LG1019 JIMOH TAOFEEQ ADEOLA
6. U18LG1092 SALISU MUSA IBRAHIM
7. U18LG1071 LAWAN KHALID MUSA
8. U18LG1018 MAHMUD MUSTAPHA
9. U18LG1075 NWANONYELUM CHIOMA
10. U18LG1029 SARATU SAIDU
11. U18LG1087 SOLOMON SUNDAY
12. U18LG1047 MUSTAPHA MUBARAK T.
13. U18LG1022 BELLO AMINU IBRAHIM
14. U18LG2014 AHMAD AMINA MUHAMMAD
15. U18LG2036 MARYAM AHAMAD

1
Introduction

Collective responsibility, also known as collective guilt, refers to responsibilities of

organizations, groups and societies. In reality [tone] collective responsibility could be
both collective guilt as well as collectible honor. Particularly, it could be seen in the
Soviet honoring system which was awarding state orders and decorations to Soviet
enterprises and even Soviet Union republics or cities, such as Hero city.

In politics

In some countries with parliamentary systems, there is a convention that all members of a
cabinet must publicly support all government decisions, even if they do not agree with
them. Members of the cabinet that wish to dissent or object publicly must resign from
their position or be sacked. As a result of collective responsibility, the entire government
cabinet must resign if a vote of no confidence is passed in parliament.

Individual and Collective Responsibility

Responsibility is an ethical concept that refers to the fact that individuals and groups have
morally based obligations and duties to others and to larger ethical and moral codes,
standards, and traditions.

Individual responsibility is generally the ethical idea that human beings choose, instigate,
or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our
actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable. Collective responsibility
refers to responsibilities of organizations, groups and societies. By which individuals who
are part of such collectives to be responsible for other people’s actions and occurrences
by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively engaging.

Now, let’s look at how the concepts of individual and collective responsibility are applied
to parliamentary systems of government:

2
In some countries with parliamentary systems, there is a convention that all members of a
cabinet must publicly support all government decisions, even if they do not agree with
them. Members of the cabinet that wish to dissent or object publicly must resign from
their position or be sacked. As a result of collective responsibility, the entire government
cabinet must resign if a vote of no confidence is passed in parliament.

Individual ministerial responsibility is the aspect of this kind of constitutional convention

in governments using the Westminster System that states that a cabinet minister bears the
ultimate responsibility for the actions of their ministry or department. Individual
ministerial responsibility is not the same as cabinet collective responsibility, which states
members of the cabinet must approve publicly of its collective decisions or resign. This
support includes voting for the government in the legislature.

This means that a motion for a vote of “no confidence” is not in order should the actions
of an organ of government fail in the proper discharge of their responsibilities. Where
there is ministerial responsibility, the accountable minister is expected to take the blame
and ultimately resign, but the majority or coalition within parliament of which the
minister is part, is not held to be answerable for that minister’s failure.

This means that if waste, corruption, or any other misbehaviour is found to have occurred
within a ministry, the minister is responsible even if the minister had no knowledge of the
actions. A minister is ultimately responsible for all actions by a ministry because, even
without knowledge of an infraction by subordinates, the minister approved the hiring and
continued employment of those civil servants. If misdeeds are found to have occurred in
a ministry, the minister is expected to resign. It is also possible for a minister to face
criminal charges for malfeasance under their watch.

If a member of the Cabinet wishes to openly object to a Cabinet decision, then they are
obliged to resign from their position in the Cabinet. Cabinet collective responsibility is
related to the fact that if a vote of no confidence is passed in parliament, the government
is responsible collectively, and thus the entire government resigns. The consequence will

3
be that a new government will be formed or parliament will be dissolved and a general
election will be called. To reiterate, cabinet collective responsibility is not the same as
individual ministerial responsibility, which as already mentioned, states that ministers are
responsible for the running of their departments, and therefore culpable for the
departments’ mistakes.

This principle of responsibility is considered essential, as it is seen to guarantee that an

elected official is answerable for every single government decision. It is also important to
motivate ministers to closely scrutinize the activities within their departments. One rule
coming from this principle is that each cabinet member answers for their own ministry in
parliament’s question time. The reverse of ministerial responsibility is that civil servants
are not supposed to take credit for the successes of their department, allowing the
government to claim them.

Cabinet collective responsibility

Cabinet collective responsibility, also known as collective ministerial responsibility, is a

constitutional convention in Parliamentary systems that members of the cabinet must
publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not
privately agree with them. This support includes voting for the government in the
legislature. Some Communist political parties apply a similar convention of democratic
centralism to their central committee.

If a member of the Cabinet wishes to openly object to a Cabinet decision then they are
obliged to resign from their position in the Cabinet.

Cabinet collective responsibility is related to the fact that if a vote of no confidence is

passed in parliament, the government is responsible collectively, and thus the entire
government resigns. The consequence will be that a new government will be formed or
parliament will be dissolved and a general election will be called. Cabinet collective
responsibility is not the same as individual ministerial responsibility , which states that

4
ministers are responsible for the running of their departments, and therefore culpable for
the departments' mistakes.

Overview

Cabinet collective responsibility is a tradition in parliamentary governments in which the

prime minister is responsible for appointing the cabinet ministers. The cabinet ministers
are usually selected from the same political party as the prime minister to make collective
decision-making for legislation faster and more effective. Unlike a presidential system, as
used, for example, in the United States, a parliamentary system's executive and legislative
branches are intertwined. Because of the fusion of powers of the executive and legislative
branches the prime minister relies on the cabinet to always support policy decisions. A
breach of cabinet collective responsibility, such as when a cabinet member publicly
disagrees with an executive decision, results in resignation or termination from the
cabinet. The New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service in Australia
explains that "one aspect of collective ministerial responsibility is that Ministers share
responsibility for major government decisions, particularly those made by the cabinet and,
even if they personally object to such decisions, Ministers must be prepared to accept and
defend them or resign from the cabinet".

Cabinet collective responsibility consists of two main features:

Cabinet confidentiality

The members of the cabinet must not reveal the content of discussions which take place.
This allows for cabinet members to privately debate and raise concerns.

Cabinet solidarity

The members of the cabinet must publicly show a unified position, and must vote with
the government even if they privately disagree with the decision that has been made.

5
Collective responsibility is not circumvented by appointing Ministers outside of Cabinet,
as has occurred in New Zealand where, from 2005 to 2008,

Winston Peters and Peter Dunne were Ministers outside of Cabinet, despite their parties
not being considered part of a coalition.

Presidential System

In non-parliamentary governments like that of the United States, cabinet collective

responsibility is not formally practiced. This is due to a clearer separation of the
executive and the legislature in policy-making. The Nigerian president's cabinet members
cannot simultaneously serve in Congress, and therefore cannot vote on legislation
supported by the executive. The president instead has veto power over legislation passed
by Congress. Cabinet unity and collective agreement between members are important to
cabinet stability and party politics, but cabinet members do not have to publicly support
legislation proposed or supported by the president. It is, however, in a cabinet member's
best interest to support and align with the president's policies because they serve at the
pleasure of the president, who can at any time dismiss them or appoint them to another
position.

Examples

Parliamentary democracies such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada practice
and adhere to cabinet collective responsibility. Rhodes, Wanna and Weller offer this
description of the principle of cabinet solidarity in Westminster systems of parliamentary
democracy: "Cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility are twin dimensions of
responsible party government that enjoy constitutionality, albeit informally. They lie at
the core of ministerial governance. Cabinet solidarity is purely a political convention
designed to maintain or protect the collective good as perceived by a partisan ministry. It
rests on the notion that the executive ought to appear a collective entity, able to maintain
cohesion and display political strength".

6
United Kingdom

The United Kingdom practices cabinet collective responsibility. The prime minister
selects a number of cabinet ministers from the House of Commons and the

House of Lords. Once selected as cabinet ministers, each minister is given a position as
head of one of the government departments. Cabinet ministers respond to oral questions
from MPs. The cabinet members, along with the Prime Minister, schedule weekly closed
door sessions to discuss the collective stance of the cabinet to avoid inconsistent
responses from cabinet ministers. The solidarity of the cabinet is consistently challenged
by the opposition in an attempt to create contradictions between cabinet ministers. It is
therefore imperative for the cabinet members to have their responses as common and
similar as possible.

In the United Kingdom, the doctrine applies to all members of the government, from
members of the cabinet down to Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Its inner workings are
set out in the Ministerial Code. On occasion, this principle has been suspended; most
notably in the 1930s when in Britain the National Government allowed its Liberal
members to oppose the introduction of protective tariffs; and again when

Harold Wilson allowed Cabinet members to campaign both for and against the 1975
referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Economic Community. In
2003, Tony Blair allowed Clare Short to stay in the cabinet, despite her public opposition
to the 2003 Iraq War; however, she later resigned.

Prime Minister David Cameron suspended the cabinet collective responsibility doctrine
for the 2016 EU referendum, following the precedent set by Harold Wilson in 1975.
Prominent cabinet ministers including

Michael Gove and Chris Grayling opted to make use of the relaxation by campaigning to
leave.

7
Advantages

A parliamentary system that uses cabinet collective responsibility is more likely to avoid
contradictions and disagreements between cabinet members of the executive branch.
Cabinet ministers are likely to feel there is a practical and collective benefit from being
part of a team. Cabinet collective responsibility to the people also benefits party and
personal loyalty to the prime minister. Solidarity within the cabinet can strengthen the
prime minister's party and accelerate policy decisions and interests of that party.
Presidential democracies often lack the ability to pass legislation quickly in times of
emergency or instances of national security.

Disadvantages

Because cabinet collective responsibility forces the cabinet ministers to publicly agree
with the prime minister's decisions, political debate and internal discourse is hindered.
When disagreements occur within a cabinet dependent on collective responsibility,
negotiating collective agreements can be difficult. Cabinet collective responsibility is
therefore dependent on the mutual agreement and collective unity of the cabinet and its
members.

Ganduje’s Aide Sacked for Criticising Buhari

SSS says Salihu Tanko-Yakassai is being investigated "over issues beyond the expression
of opinions in the social media"

The State Security Service (SSS) has confirmed the arrest of Salihu Tanko, a former
media aide to the Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Ganduje.

Mr Tanko was arrested hours after calling on President Muhammadu Buhari to check
Nigeria’s worsening insecurity or resign. He has also been sacked by Governor Ganduje.

The SSS spokesperson, Peter Afunnaya, in a short statement late Saturday in Abuja said
Mr Tanko is in their custody, facing investigation.

8
“This is to confirm that Salihu Tanko-Yakasai is with the Department of State Services.
He is being investigated over issues beyond the expression of opinions in the social
media as wrongly alleged by sections of the public,” the statement read.

PREMIUM TIMES reported Mr Tanko, on Twitter, saying the All Progressive Congress
(APC) has failed Nigerians over the worsening insecurity.

Following the abductions of 27 schoolboys in Kagara, Niger State and 317 schoolgirls in
Zamfara, Mr Tanko had on Friday taken to social media to express his anger.

He said the APC government at all levels has failed to deliver on its primary
responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of Nigerians.

Mr Tanko, in a series of tweets, called on President Buhari to deal with the escalating
insecurity or resign.

“Clearly, we as APC government, at all levels, have failed Nigerians in the number 1
duty we were elected to do, which is to secure lives & properties.

“Not a single day goes by without some sort of insecurity in this land. This is a shame!
Deal with terrorists decisively or resign,” he wrote on his verified Twitter handle,
@dawisu

Following the comments, Governor Ganduje relieved Mr Tanko of his appointment.

Conclusion

A statement by the state government announcing the sack said Mr Tanko had failed to
differentiate between personal opinion and official stand on matters of public concern and
therefore could not be allowed to continue to serve in a government he does not believe
in.

9
References

Cabinet Office Cabinet Manual 2008 (Wellington, 2008) para 3.20

Gay, Oonagh; Powell, Thomas. Research Paper 04/82: "The collective responsibility of
Ministers – an outline of the issues", Parliament and Constitution Centre, the
House of Commons Library. 15 November 2004. p. 7: "As with so much of the
United Kingdom constitutional and political system, collective ministerial
responsibility is not something created or explained in some statute or
constitutional document."

Griffith, Gareth (2010). Minority governments in Australia 1989-2009: accords, charters

and agreements. [Sydney, N.S.W.]: NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service.
ISBN 978-0-7313-1860-5.

Leroy Way. "British and American Constitutional Democracy".

Petersen, Eric (19 May 2005). "Congress: A brief comparison of the British House of
Commons and the U.S. House of Representatives". Congressional Research
Service: 3–15.

Rhodes, R.A.W.; Wanna, John; Weller, Patrick (2009). Comparing Westminster. OUP. p.
127. ISBN 978-0-19-956349-4.

Strøm, Kaare; Müller, Wolfgang C.; Bergman, Torbjörn (2006-01-19). Delegation and
Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. ISBN 9780199291601.

10