The dispute over the Multipurpose Hall Mangkolemba has taken a fresh turn, with the Mangkolemba Civil Society Organisation (CSO) questioning the use of a new nomenclature for the project and declining a meeting called by the Directorate of Youth Resources & Sports (DYRS).
In a letter dated October 1, the DYRS informed the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Mangkolemba, that the Advisor for Youth Resources & Sports had sought a meeting with concerned CSOs over the “Multi-purpose Indoor Stadium, Mangkolemba Sub-Division.” The meeting was scheduled for October 8 at 2 pm at the Directorate’s conference hall in Kohima.
The Mangkolemba public, however, resolved not to attend the meeting, stating that the nomenclature used in the government communication is new and does not correspond with the “Multipurpose Hall Mangkolemba” that has been the subject of the ongoing public issue.
According to the resolution adopted at the Mangkolemba Public General Meeting on October 3, the public cannot participate in a meeting concerning a project under a nomenclature that has neither been previously established nor officially explained as referring to the same project.
The latest development comes amid a wider dispute over the project’s location, official records and identity. Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio had earlier sought an explanation from the Youth Resources & Sports Department after expressing surprise over the location of the hall.
The public meeting has now issued a 30-day “final and conclusive” period to the Government of Nagaland to resolve the issue and bring it to its “logical conclusion.”
The public has stated that it will not accept any alternative arrangement, compromise or negotiated settlement in lieu of transparency and accountability. It has also demanded that all persons found responsible for any wrongdoing or irregularity in connection with the project be identified and held accountable in accordance with law.
The resolutions further state that no alteration, modification, substitution or change will be accepted in respect of the building, nomenclature, location, project identity or official records and documentation. The project, the public said, must remain consistent with its original and fundamental official records.
The public has also rejected closed-door meetings or undisclosed deliberations, demanding that all responses, explanations and decisions of the authorities be placed in the public domain for scrutiny.
Among its specific demands, the public has called on the government to ensure construction of the “Multipurpose Hall Mangkolemba at Mangkolemba, Mokokchung District” at Mangkolemba Town, in accordance with the fundamental official records of the project.
It has also demanded revocation and declaration as null and void of the completion certificate issued by the present ADC, Mangkolemba, Moakumzuk Tzudir, on July 2, 2026. The meeting claimed that the certificate has no corresponding basis in the fundamental official records of the project.
The resolutions further demand that the Advisor for Sports and Youth Resources take “moral responsibility” and resign from office. They also call for the resignation of Tourism and Higher Education Minister Temjen Imna Along, citing the present location of the hall within the premises of his private residence.
The public has warned that failure to fulfil the demands within the stipulated 30-day period would leave it with no option but to undertake lawful and democratic courses of action, including public demonstrations, mass mobilisation and closure of government offices.
The resolution stated that the Government of Nagaland, concerned departments and district administration would bear responsibility for any consequences arising from failure to address the demands within the stipulated period.
The immediate dispute, however, now centres on the project’s nomenclature. While the public insists on the identity “Multipurpose Hall Mangkolemba,” the October 1 DYRS communication refers to a “Multi-purpose Indoor Stadium, Mangkolemba Sub-Division.”
The government has yet to publicly clarify whether the two descriptions refer to the same project and, if so, why a different nomenclature was used in the latest official communication.