Category: Quotes

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Thursday recommended that President Bidya Devi Bhandari initiate a process to appoint a new prime minister. President Bhandari promptly obliged.

Experts on constitutional matters were quick to point out that in doing so, both the implementer and the protector of the constitution shredded the top law of the country apart.

Oli’s vote of confidence is pending in Parliament and he has not resigned.

“The prime minister has no right to recommend a new process to form a new government,” said Bhimarjun Acharya, an advocate who specialises on constitutional law.

“Government formation is a process which is Parliament’s prerogative, not something which a Cabinet decides,” said Bipin Adhikari, former dean of the Kathmandu University School of Law.

Following his reappointment on May 13, after losing a trust vote in the House on May 10, Oli is constitutionally bound to prove in the House within 30 days—by June 14—that he has the confidence of the House.

After his trust motion failed in Parliament on May 10, President Bhandari had given the political parties until 9pm of May 13 to form a new government as per Article 76 (2). But the parties failed. President Bhandari then appointed Oli prime minister as per Article 76 (3) as the leader of the party with the highest number of members in the House.

Experts say Oli should have taken the constitutional route and gone for a floor test or resigned.

“There are only two ways to pave the way for the formation of a new government—he fails the confidence vote or resigns,” said Acharya. “It is out and out unconstitutional to request the President to call on the parties to form a new government when there is a legitimate government in place.”

Oli’s request to President Bhandari to pave the way for the formation of a new government comes on the heels of the Janata Samajbadi Party’s decision that it would rather seek to form a government under its own leadership. The decision meant it was not going to support Oli in his confidence vote. That would have led to the fall of the Oli government, thereby prompting the President to invoke Article 76 (5).

The decision to recommend that the President invoke Article 76 (5) was taken by Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.

According to a minister, the prime minister intimated that he would pave the way for the formation of a new government under Article 76 (5).

Experts say Oli overrode the constitutional process by asking the President to invoke Article 76 (5). It’s incumbent upon the President to invoke any article on the formation of the government, not on the government itself, according to them.

Article 76 (5) is invoked only when the prime minister elected under Article 76 (3) fails the confidence vote in the House.

Article 76 (5) says in cases where the prime minister appointed under Article 76 (3) fails to obtain a vote of confidence and any member presents a ground on which he or she can obtain a vote of confidence in the House, the President shall appoint such member as prime minister.

Article 76 (5), in essence, is an extension of Article 76 (2).

Article 76 (2) says in cases where no party has a clear majority in the House, the President shall appoint as prime minister a member of the House who can command majority with the support of two or more parties in the House.

Adhikari, the law professor, called the government recommendation to pave the way for the formation of a new government flawed, prima facie.

“The recommendation does not conform to norms of the parliamentary system. The prime minister should resign to complete the course before recommending the government formation under any other article of the constitution,” Adhikari told the Post. “The government cannot make a request to the President to skip any step without completing the due constitutional process.”

Oli’s intentions, however, appear to be clear. He is bent on getting the House dissolved so that he could justify his December last year’s decision to go for fresh elections.

In what constitutional experts had called a fraud committed on the constitution, Oli on December 20 had suddenly dissolved the House and called snap polls for April 30 and May 10. The Supreme Court, however, overturned his decision and restored the House, in what was described by many as a “landmark decision” and a big blow to Oli. But two weeks later, on March 7, hours before the meeting of the restored House was scheduled, the Supreme Court in a dramatic verdict resurrected Oli’s CPN-UML and Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) which had merged in May 2018 to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

The court order threw the country’s already fluid politics into uncertainties.

Oli has made all attempts to prove that the House was irrelevant. Insiders say his sudden decision on May 2 to seek a confidence vote in the House on May 10 was part of his bid to get the House dissolved.

After failing the trust vote, he was reappointed, but yet another trust vote failure could, however, have given a chance for the House to survive.

If the Janata Samajbadi Party, which has 34 members (two suspended), could manage to get the support of the Nepali Congress, which has 63 members (two suspended) and the Maoist Centre, which has 49 members, Oli would have been thrown out of Baluwatar.

Analysts say Thursday’s move by Oli is his one last ditch-effort to get the House dissolved.

Since the Janata Samajbadi Party is a divided house, it could be extremely difficult to clinch the required number–136–in less than 24 hours, as the President has given until 5pm Friday to form a new government.

If the Janata Samajbadi does not take the lead, the Nepali Congress and the Maoist Centre could make a move to form a new government, but they will need the support of the Janata Samajbadi.

A prime minister appointed under Article 76 (5), however, needs to secure the vote of confidence within 30 days from the date of the appointment, as laid down by Article 76 (6).

Failure to do so would lead to invocation of Article 76 (7), which says in cases where the prime minister appointed under Article 76 (5) fails to obtain a vote of confidence or the prime minister cannot be appointed, the House would be dissolved. The country then must hold polls to elect a new House of Representatives within six months.

Opposition parties have strongly objected to Oli’s Thursday’s move.

The Nepali Congress, the primary opposition, has called an emergency meeting of the incumbent and former office bearers as well as senior leaders to discuss the latest political situation.

“The President’s notice calling on parties to form a new government under Article 76 (5) is illegal and unconstitutional,” senior Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel told the Post. “How can she accept such a recommendation letter from the prime minister unless he resigns or fails a vote of confidence?”

Poudel described the prime minister and President’s acts as a choreographed ploy to overthrow the constitution.

“If the prime minister thinks he will fail the confidence vote, which is mandatory as per the constitutional provision, he should resign and let the President invoke the required article,” said Poudel. “How can one individual lawmaker prove a majority in 20 hours? The prime minister and the President have plotted a conspiracy to dissolve the House.”

Oli’s move follows some dramatic events earlier in the day.

In the afternoon, the Supreme Court scrapped the appointment of seven ministers, including Ram Bahadur Thapa, of the Oli Cabinet, calling it unconstitutional.

Thapa, a long-time Maoist leader, had defected to Oli. The Maoist Centre had sacked Thapa as a member of the National Assembly last month. But he was immediately appointed to his post of home minister by Oli.

Hours after the court order to scrap the appointment of Thapa and six other ministers, all former Maoist leaders, Thapa lost the National Assembly by-election to Khim Lal Devkota, who was backed by Oli’s nemesis Madhav Kumar Nepal.

Analysts say the turn of events in the day also prompted Oli to take such an erratic decision of recommending a new process to form a new government while himself being the legitimate prime minister.

A UML leader, however, said that Oli’s Thursday decision is in line with what he has believed all along.

“The prime minister has time and again said that this Parliament’s relevance is over,” said Subas Chandra Nembang, a UML leader and close aide to Oli. “I believe the prime minister has apprised all the stakeholders of his move.”

Nembang, the two-time chair of the Constituent Assembly, who has drawn flak for not speaking a word when Oli violated the constitution in the past on Thursday once again defended his party chair.

“The prime minister does not need to resign,” said Nembang, himself a seasoned lawyer and known as an expert on constitutional affairs, who oversaw the entire constitution-drafting process. “When we have to go for another process of government formation, the prime minister need not resign because this government is the continuation of the same government.”

Nembang refused to go into the constitutional provision that requires Oli to secure the vote of confidence.

“[Our] prime minister never goes against the letter and spirit of the constitution,” he said.

Constitutional experts, however, say ever since Oli came to power, he has shown utter disregard for the constitution and rule of law. From the ordinance on the Constitutional Council Act to House dissolution, they say Oli has attempted to destroy the system one step at a time.

“What happened today in collusion between the prime minister and the President,” said Acharya, the constitutional lawyer, “is nothing but a well-choreographed conspiracy to destroy the system and the constitution–the top law of the country.”

संविधानविद् डा.विपिन अधिकारीले प्रधानमन्त्रीले राजीनामा नगरी अर्को सरकार गठनको प्रक्रिया अघि बढाउनु व्यवहारिक नभएको टिप्पणी गरेका छन् । डा. अधिकारीले अहिलेको अवस्थामा कि प्रधानमन्त्रीले आफुले राजीनामा गरे सरह हो भनेर भन्नुपर्ने, कि त राष्ट्रपतिले पनि त्यसको पुष्टि हुने आधार देखाएपछि मात्रै नयाँ सरकार गठनको अर्को प्रक्रिया सुरु गर्नुपर्ने बताए ।

रातोपाटी अनलाइन टीभीको द भ्युमा कुरा गर्दै डा. अधिकारीले सरकारको सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले संविधानको धारा ७६ को उपधारा ५ अनुसार सरकारको दावी गर्न प्रतिनिधि सभा सदस्यलाई गरेको आह्वान ठूलो खतरा नभए पनि संविधानको व्याख्या नमिलेको टिप्पणी गरे ।

‘सरकार निर्माणको काम कारवाहीमा सिफारिस भन्दा पनि हैसियत हेरिन्छ, उनले भने, ‘प्रधानमन्त्रीले राजीनामा दिएको अवस्था वा विश्वासको मत लिन नसकेको अवस्थामा मात्र नयाँ सरकारको प्रक्रिया अघि बढाउनुपर्छ’, संविधानविद् अधिकारीको भनाइ छ ।

उनले अहिले बाहिर आएका टिप्पणीहरू सतही रहेको भन्दै यसबाट ठूलो खतरा उत्पन्न नभएको दाबी गरे । ‘ठूलो खतरा उत्पन्न भएको होइन, बरु संविधानको व्याख्या गर्ने तरिका मिलेन ।’ उनले नयाँ सरकारका लागि राष्ट्रपतिले दिएको समय अपुग हुने लागे राष्ट्रपतिसँग थप समय माग गर्नसमेत सकिने बताए । ‘यदि दलका नेताहरुलाई त्यो अवधि अपुग हुन्छ भन्ने लागे राष्ट्रपतिसँग थप समय माग्न सकिन्छ’, अधिकारीको भनाइ छ । उनले त्यो अवधिमा पनि सरकार गठन हुन सकेन भने निर्वाचनमा जाने प्रक्रिया रहेको बताए ।

डा. अधिकारीले नयाँ सरकार गठनका लागि राष्ट्रपतिले दलहरूसँग अन्तरक्रिया गर्नुपर्ने भन्दै अन्तरक्रिया नगरी कसैले दावी पेश गर्ने कुरा असम्भवजस्तै रहेको टिप्पणी गरे ।

‘जालझेल होइन, पारदर्शिताको कुरा हो, त्यसका लागि अहिलको समय अपुग हुन सक्छ’ अधिकारीले भने, ‘त्यसका लागि दलहरूको सुझावका आधारमा राष्ट्रपतिले समय दिन सक्नुपर्छ ।’

भिडियो हेर्नको लागि कृपया यो लिङ्कमा जानुहोला :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-sZcjNfXc&t=9s
 

In what has been described by experts on constitutional affairs as an unconstitutional move, the President has given parties to form a new government under Article 76 (5).

A statement from the Office of the President says the President calls upon parties to stake claim to the government by Friday 5:00 pm to form a new government as per Article 76 (5), as per the recommendation of the government.

The government has requested to pave the way for the formation of a new government by invoking Article 76 (5) saying that there is little prospect of this government securing a vote of confidence in the House, reads the statement.

After losing a trust vote on May 10, Oli was appointed prime minister under Article 76 (3) as the leader of the party with the highest number of members in the House of Representatives on May 13. Oli’s reappointment was possible after the opposition parties failed to stake claim to the government under Article 76 (2) within the deadline of 9pm on May 13 set by the President.

As per constitutional provisions, Oli needed to secure a vote of confidence in the House by June 14.

Experts say the Oli government and the President both have violated the constitution.

“If that is the recommendation, it goes beyond the norms of the parliamentary system. The prime minister should resign to complete the course before recommending the government formation under any other article of the constitution,” Bipin Adhikari, former dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, told the Post.

Article 76 (5) is invoked only when the prime minister elected under Article 76 (3) fails the confidence vote in the House.

Article 76 (5) says in cases where the prime minister appointed under Article 76 (3) fails to obtain a vote of confidence and any member presents a ground on which he or she can obtain a vote of confidence in the House, the President shall appoint such member as the prime minister.

Article 76 (5), in essence, is an extension of Article 76 (2).

Article 76 (2) says in cases where no party has a clear majority in the House, the President shall appoint as the prime minister a member of the House who can command majority with the support of two or more parties in the House.

Oli’s decision “to pave the way for the formation of a new government” comes on the heels of the Janata Samajbadi Party’s decision that it would rather seek to form a government under its own leadership. The decision meant it was not going to support Oli in his confidence vote. That would have resulted in the fall of the Oli government, thereby prompting the President to invoke Article 76 (5).

But Oli has overridden the constitutional process by asking the President to invoke Article 76 (5).

The article, according to experts, would have been automatically invoked after Oli failed the confidence vote or resigned.

“Government formation is a process which is Parliament’s prerogative, not something which a Cabinet decides. The Cabinet cannot make a choice on this,” said Adhikari. “The government cannot make a request to the President to skip any step without completing the due constitutional process.”

K.P. Sharma Oli was sworn in as PM days after losing the vote of confidence as the nation struggles to treat rising Covid cases.

KATHMANDU, Nepal — Nepal, the South Asian Himalayan nation famed for being home to the tallest mountain peaks globally, is in a state of turmoil. There has been a massive surge in Covid-19 cases as the government struggles to keep itself in power.

The incumbent Nepalese government led by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli failed to secure a vote of confidence on May 10 as per Article 100 of the country’s Constitution in the House of Representatives, when 93 members voted in favor of him, and 124 members voted against him.

The House of Representatives is the lower house of the parliament, with 275 members and the National Assembly is the upper house, with 59 members. House of Representatives members are elected through a parallel voting system and hold their seats for five years, while an electoral college elects those in the National Assembly.

Following Oli’s defeat, President Bidya Devi Bhandari called on the parties to stake their claim for the formation of a government. When no party was able to do so, Oli was once again appointed the prime minister.

“Under Article 76 (2) of the Constitution, a member of the House of Representatives with a majority of two or more parties represented in the House of Representatives did not submit a claim for the PM’s post,” said Rupnarayan Bhattarai, spokesperson of the President’s Office, on May 13.

As per Bhattarai, Oli was appointed the prime minister Article 76 (3) of the Constitution as the leader of the largest party in parliament with 120 seats and formed a minority government.

Oli has 30 days to prove his majority in the parliament, else the president will call for the formation of a majority government.

Political infighting and withering alliances

Oli lost the vote after different political factions within his party, the CPN-UML, led by Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal, did not vote for him.

Some political analysts suggest that Oli did not get the votes of the members of parliament from the other faction due to the political infighting and power struggle within the party. They believe it will be difficult for Oli to secure a majority.

“Looking at the rift within the party, it seems unlikely that Oli will get a vote of confidence, and a majority government will be formed under the leadership of someone other than Oli,” political analyst Shiva Gaunle said.

Bipin Adhikari, a senior constitutional lawyer, told Zenger News Oli had sought a vote of confidence from parliament to go to the polls.

Oli had dissolved the parliament on December 20, 2020, and political instability resurfaced in Nepal.

Oli’s then party president Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), senior leaders Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal took to the streets to overthrow Oli’s government.

Similarly, the principal Opposition Nepali Congress and other parties also rallied in large numbers on the streets to protest against the government. To counter the opposition’s narrative, Oli and his supporters organized a nationwide rally and public.

Then, on February 23, 2021, the Supreme Court restored the dissolved parliament.

Adhikari, who is also an advocate, said Oli should have resigned on moral grounds after the Supreme Court’s decision, but he did not.

“A majority government is unlikely to be formed after about a month, and the country will go to mid-term elections,” Hari Roka, a political analyst, told Zenger News.

Roka blamed India for playing a part in the recent political developments in Nepal and said the West helped Oli become prime minister again.

Some analysts believe the political tussle has pushed the country further into crisis at a time when it needs better management of oxygen treatment for Covid-19 and vaccination drives. (UNICEF Nepal/Facebook)

A surge in cases, health infrastructure collapsing

The political turmoil came amid the nation going on a red alert due to rising Covid cases.

The Nepal Medical Association declared a nationwide “red alert” on May 12 and said Nepal’s condition was serious.

“The government, all political parties, civil society, and all professional associations, brothers and sisters, are warmly appealing to all to join the battlefield and provide support and goodwill to break the Covid-19 epidemic,” the association said in a statement.

In Bhaktapur, a city in the eastern corner of Nepal’s capital Kathmandu, Shiva Basnet’s 52-year-old wife was diagnosed with a common cold on April 30. She was treated for a common cold at home, but had difficulty breathing the next day.

Prime Minister Oli urged the international community to help Nepal by providing vaccines. (UNICEF Nepal/Facebook)

She tested Covid-19 positive soon after. Basnet immediately sought a hospital with an ICU bed but could not find one.

“We cried for two days when we couldn’t find an ICU bed. My wife was suffering because she didn’t get treatment on time,” Basnet spoke of his ordeal to Zenger News.

His wife was then taken to the Ganeshman Singh Hospital in Lalitpur, the third-largest city. However, her relatives could not find a bed till evening, when she was finally treated in the emergency unit. She was diagnosed with oxygen deficiency.

“We had the money, still did not get an ICU bed and treatment on time. It feels like we were born in a country without a good leader,” Basnet said.

Political analyst Roka said the Oli-led government failed to control the Covid-19 infection and the treatment of patients.

Some analysts believe political tussle has pushed the country further into crisis at a time when it needs better management of oxygen treatment for Covid-19 and subsequent vaccination drives.

Scenes on the ground show the Covid-19 patients were suffering due to lack of timely medical treatment, while some were dying without treatment.

Over 5,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the country so far, whereas 455,020 people have been infected.

As per the ministry, close to 3 million were vaccinated with the first dose by April 30. And 362,001 people with the second dose.

Jageshwar Gautam, the ministry’s spokesperson, said all major private and government hospitals were running at full capacity with Covid-19 patients.

Some private hospitals in Kathmandu issued statements saying they cannot admit more patients due to a lack of beds with oxygen.

Thousands of worshippers from Nepal, including former King of Nepal Gyanendra Sah and his wife, attended the “Kumbh Mela” in India, which contributed to the surge in cases. (Rameshwar Gaur)

“In the background of having scarcity of oxygen in the country and according to the government policy of providing only 100 cylinders per day, we regret to inform you all that we are unable to admit new Covid-19 patients in the hospital,” tweeted Grande International Hospital in Kathmandu on May 11.

On the same day, Chandramani Adhikari, the Shahid Gangalal National Heart Center executive director in Kathmandu, said the “country’s health system has collapsed due to the high number of Covid-19 infections, and the government has failed to manage the situation”.

Oli blamed for mismanagement

Prime Minister Oli told an international news organization on May 8 that the “Covid-19 situation was under control”. But in another piece in a British newspaper, he urged the international community to help Nepal by providing vaccines.

Oli was criticized on social media for his claims that “the situation was under control”.

As cases continued to rise in the country, Oli organized a religious gathering in Baluwatar, a residential locality in Kathmandu, on April 20 in the name of “Sita Ram Shobha Rath Yatra Foundation Ceremony”, where a crowd of more than 25 people had gathered.

The previous day, on April 19, a cabinet meeting chaired by Oli had set a standard of not allowing more than 25 people to gather due to the risk of Covid-19.

At the same time, thousands of worshippers attended the “Kumbh Mela” in India, which also contributed to the surge in cases. Former Nepal King Gyanendra Shah and Queen Komal Shah tested positive after returning from the “Kumbh Mela”.

Anup Bastola, the chief consultant of Sukraraj Tropical & Infectious Disease Hospital in Kathmandu, told Zenger News Nepal did not have many skilled and trained doctors for lung-related diseases, and most of the hospitals do not have the necessary infrastructure either.

“The government should buy ventilators and oxygen from the suppliers and distribute it to the hospitals,” Bastola said. “It can reduce the risk of death to some extent.”

(Edited by Gaurab Dasgupta and Amrita Das. Map by Urvashi Makwana.)

सरकार गठनका लागि बहुमत जुटाउन पार्टीले दिएको समर्थनलाई मान्ने वा सांसदको व्यक्तिगत सहमति खोज्ने? फरक–फरक मापदण्ड खोजेका लुम्बिनी र गण्डकी प्रदेशमध्ये कुनै एकमा असंवैधानिक काम भएको छ।

प्रदेश सरकार गठन गर्दा गण्डकी र लुम्बिनी प्रदेशका प्रमुखले फरक-फरक मापदण्डलाई मान्यता दिएका छन्। संविधानको धारा १६८ बोमजिम मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्दा लुम्बिनी प्रदेश प्रमुख धर्मनाथ यादव र गण्डकी प्रदेश प्रमुख सीताकुमारी पौडेलले फरक-फरक मापदण्ड अपनाएका हुन्।

लुम्बिनी प्रदेश प्रमुख यादवले प्रदेश सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने राजनीतिक दलले गरेको निर्णयलाई मान्यता दिँदै नेकपा (एमाले) का शंकर पोखरेललाई मुख्यमन्त्री बनाए। एमालेकै केही सांसदले पोखरेललाई मुख्यमन्त्री बनाउन आफूहरूको समर्थन नरहेको भन्दै अर्को पक्षमा हस्ताक्षर गरिसक्दा समेत यादवले त्यसलाई अस्वीकार गरे। 

तर, गण्डकी प्रदेशकी प्रमुख पौडेलले भने राजनीतिक दलले गरेको निर्णयमा असहमति जनाउने सांसदहरूको विज्ञप्ति र निवेदनलाई मान्यता दिइन्। त्यस्तो मान्यताका कारण उक्त प्रदेश सभामा बहुमतसहित मुख्यमन्त्री दाबी गरेका कांग्रेसका उम्मेदवारलाई नभई एमालेकै पृथ्वीसुब्बा गुरूङलाई अल्पमतको मुख्यमन्त्रीमा नियुक्त गरिन्। उनले ३० दिनभित्र सभाबाट विश्वासको मत लिनुपर्नेछ।

गण्डकीः सांसदको व्यक्तिगत निर्णयलाई मान्यता

प्रदेश प्रमुखले दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको समर्थनमा बहुमतको सरकार गठनका लागि दाबी पेश गर्न दिएको तीन दिनको समयको अन्तिम घडीमा गण्डकी प्रदेशमा चार दलले दाबी गरे। २६ वैशाखमा मुख्यमन्त्री गुरुङले राजीनामा दिएपछि रिक्त मुख्यमन्त्री पदमा नियुक्तिका लागि आफूले ‘बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने’ आधारसहित आउन प्रदेश प्रमुख पौडेलले २९ वैशाख दिउँसो ४ बजेसम्मको समय दिएकी थिइन्। 

नेपाली कांग्रेस, नेकपा (माओवादी केन्द्र), जनता समाजवादी पार्टी (जसपा) नेपालका संसदीय दलका नेता र राष्ट्रिय जनमोर्चा (राजमो) का सचेतकले कांग्रेस सांसद कृष्णचन्द्र नेपालीलाई मुख्यमन्त्रीमा समर्थन गरेको पत्र प्रदेश प्रमुखलाई बुझाएका थिए। यी चार पार्टीमा ३१ सांसद थिए, जुन संख्या ६० सदस्यीय प्रदेश सभाको बहुमत हो।

तर, तीन सदस्य रहेको जनमोर्चाका दुई जना सांसदहरू कृष्ण थापा र खिमविक्रम शाहीले आफूहरू गठबन्धन सरकारको पक्षमा नरहेको विज्ञप्ति सार्वजनिक गर्दै त्यस्तै भाकाको पत्र प्रदेश प्रमुखलाई पठाए। प्रदेश प्रमुखले ती पत्रलाई मान्यता दिँदै कांग्रेसका प्रस्तावित मुख्यमन्त्री नेपालीसँग बहुमत नभएको निष्कर्ष निकालिन्।

प्रदेश प्रमुखको कार्यालयका प्रवक्ता चण्डीप्रसाद अर्यालले ‘मुख्यमन्त्रीका लागि प्राप्त भएका दाबी अध्ययन गर्दा प्रदेश सभाका सदस्यहरूको आवश्यक बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने अवस्था नदेखिएको’ बताए। प्रदेश प्रमुखले जनमोर्चाले गरेको पार्टीको निर्णयलाई नमान्दै त्यही पार्टीका सांसदहरूको व्यक्तिगत विज्ञप्तिलाई मान्यता दिइन्। त्यसपछि विपक्षी गठबन्धनले बहुमत प्राप्त गर्न नसकेको निष्कर्षसहित गुरुङलाई नै अल्पमतको मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गरिन्। 

प्रदेश सभामा दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको समर्थनमा कसैले बहुमत पुर्‍याउन सक्ने दाबी नगरेमा वा त्यस्तो दाबी प्रदेश प्रमुखलाई विश्वसनीय नलागेमा अल्पमतको सरकार गठन हुनसक्छ। दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको समर्थनमा बन्ने मुख्यमन्त्री र प्रदेश सभाको सबैभन्दा ठूलो दलको संसदीय दलको नेताका रूपमा अल्पमतको सरकारको मुख्यमन्त्री जसरी नियुक्त भए पनि उसले ३० दिनभित्र सभाको विश्वासको मत लिनुपर्छ। 

लुम्बिनीः पार्टीगत निर्णय नै अन्तिम

आफूविरुद्ध आएको अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव छल्ने उद्देश्यसहित लुम्बिनी प्रदेशका मुख्यमन्त्री पोखरेलले राजीनामा दिएको केही घण्टामै प्रदेश प्रमुख यादवले १९ वैशाखमा उनैलाई मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गरे। संविधानको धारा १६८ को (१) मा ‘प्रदेश प्रमुखले प्रदेश सभामा बहुमत प्राप्त संसदीय दलको नेतालाई मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्ने र निजको अध्यक्षतामा प्रदेश मन्त्रिपरिषद्‌को गठन हुने’ व्यवस्था छ। यही प्रावधान अनुसार यादवले पोखरेललाई मुख्यमन्त्रीमा नियुक्त गरेका थिए। 

लुम्बिनी प्रदेशमा तत्काल कायम रहेका ८१ सांसद्मा बहुमतका लागि ४२ जना चाहिन्थ्यो, जुन संख्या प्रदेश सभामा एमालेसँग भएको दाबी पोखरेलले गरेका थिए। तर, दुई जना एमाले सांसद्ले आफूहरूको समर्थन नेकपा (माओवादी केन्द्र) का कुलप्रसाद केसीलाई मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्नका लागि भएको भन्दै विपक्षीहरूको दाबी पत्रमा हस्ताक्षर गरेका थिए। एमाले र माओवादी एकीकरण भएका बखत नेकपाको नामबाट चुनाव लडेकी अर्की एक जना सांसदले आफूले माओवादी केन्द्र रोजेको स्पष्ट पारेकी थिइन्। यस्तो अवस्थामा पोखरेलसँग सभामा बहुमत थिएन। 

तर, प्रदेश प्रमुख यादवले पोखरेलसँग नै बहुमत रहेको मानेर उनैलाई नियुक्ति दिए। नियुक्त भएको अर्को दिन पोखरेलले फेसबुकमा स्टाटस लेखेर भने, “सूर्य चिह्नबाट चुनाव लडेका उहाँहरूको समर्थन कानुनी रूपमा अन्य दललाई हुन सक्तैन। चुनाव चिह्न सूर्य लिएकाहरू हाम्रा पक्षमा भनेर देखाउने र त्यसमा राष्ट्रिय पार्टीका नेताले वक्तव्य जारी गर्ने कुरा लज्जास्पद विषय हो।”

पोखरेल मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त भएपछि एमालेका दुई सांसद्ले राजीनामा गरिसकेका छन्। जसका कारण उनी सभामा अल्पमतमा परिसेकेका छन्। विपक्षी दलहरूले अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव दर्ता गर्दै प्रदेश प्रमुख यादव समक्ष विशेष अधिवेशन बोलाउन मागसहित समावेदन दर्ता गराएका छन्। तर, प्रदेश प्रमुखले अधिवेशन बोलाइसकेका छैनन् भने नियुक्तिको दुई वर्ष नपुग्दै अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव दर्ता गर्न पाइँदैन भन्ने मुख्यमन्त्री पोखरेल पक्षको अडानका कारण यो विवादको अवतरण कसरी हुन्छ टुंगो लागिसकेको छैन।

एउटा पार्टीबाट निर्वाचित सांसदको आबद्धता उक्त पार्टीमै रहने र पार्टीको निर्णय बमोजिम नै सरकार गठनका लागि उसको गणना हुने मुख्यमन्त्री पोखरेलको यस्तो दाबी गण्डकी प्रदेशमा भने खण्डन भयो। सरकार गठनका सन्दर्भमा व्यक्तिगत रूपमा सांसदहरूले दिने समर्थन वा प्रदेश सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने पार्टीले पार्टीगत रूपमा गर्ने निर्णयमध्ये कसलाई मान्यता दिने भन्नेबारे लुम्बिनी र गण्डकीको फरक मापदण्डले यो विषयमा अन्योल सिर्जना गरेको छ। 

सरकार गठनः सांसदको व्यक्तिगत निर्णय कि पार्टीको?

संविधानको धारा १६८ को उपधारा २ मा ‘कुनै पनि दलको स्पष्ट बहुमत नरहेको अवस्थामा प्रदेश सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलहरूको समर्थनमा बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने प्रदेश सभाको सदस्यलाई प्रदेश प्रमुखले मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्ने’ व्यवस्था छ।

त्यस्तै, उपधारा ३ मा यसरी मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त हुन नसकेमा वा नियुक्त भएको मुख्यमन्त्रीले ३० दिनभित्र विश्वासको मत पाउन नसकेमा ‘प्रदेश प्रमुखले प्रदेश सभामा सबैभन्दा बढी सदस्यहरू भएको संसदीय दलको नेतालाई मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्ने’ व्यवस्था छ। प्रधानमन्त्रीका हकमा संघीय संसद्‌बारे पनि धारा ७६ का उपधाराहरूमा यस्तै व्यवस्था छ। 

गण्डकी प्रदेशको अभ्यासले उपधारा २ मा रहेको ‘बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने’ भन्ने वाक्यांशलाई प्रदेश प्रमुखले आफूखुशी प्रयोग गर्नसक्ने अवस्था देखाइदिएको छ। गण्डकी प्रदेशमा पहिलो पटक प्रदेश प्रमुख नियुक्त भएका पूर्वमहान्यायाधिवक्ता बाबुराम कुँवर संविधानमा भएको उक्त प्रावधानले शुरूमै बहुमत देखाउनुपर्ने आवश्यकता सिर्जना नगरेको बताउँछन्। “शुरूमै बहुमत देखाउने अभ्यास थालिएको छ। तर, संविधानले त्यस्तो अनिवार्यता गरेको छैन। त्यस्तो हुन्थ्यो भने ३० दिनभित्र विश्वासको मत लिनुपर्ने प्रावधान नै राखिँदैनथ्यो,” उनले भने, “प्रदेश सभाको जोसुकै सदस्यलाई आफूले बहुमत सिद्ध गर्नसक्ने दाबी गर्ने अधिकार हुन्छ। उनीहरूले बहुमत पुर्‍याउन सक्ने आधारका रूपमा दलहरूको समर्थन पेश गर्न सक्छन्। त्यसलाई प्रदेश प्रमुखको कार्यालयले अध्ययन गर्छ। तर, हरेक सांसद्को हस्ताक्षर शुरूमै आवश्यक पर्दैन। त्यो खोज्न जरुरी छैन।”

संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी लुम्बिनी र गण्डकी दुवै प्रदेशमा सरकार गठन सम्बन्धी भएका अभ्यासलाई सही मान्दैनन्। “लुम्बिनीमा बलमिच्याइँ भयो। प्रदेश सभाका अन्य संसदीय दलका नेताहरूसँग छलफल समेत नगरी बिहान राजीनामा दिएको व्यक्तिलाई नै त्यसै दिन साँझ फेरि मुख्यमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्ने काम असंसदीय पनि भयो,” अधिकारीले भने, “गण्डकी प्रदेशमा पनि प्रदेश प्रमुखले पार्टीको आधिकारिक निर्णयलाई नै मान्यता दिनुपर्ने थियो। कुनै सांसदको प्रेस विज्ञप्तिलाई मान्यता दिएर पार्टीको आधिकारिक नेतालाई ‘डिस्अनर’ गर्न मिल्दैनथ्यो। पार्टीको संसदीय दलले ‘मैले फलानालाई समर्थन गर्छु’ भनेपछि प्रदेश प्रमुखले त्यसैमा चित्त बुझाउनुपर्छ। नत्र ‘ह्वीप सिस्टम’ ले काम गर्दैन।”

संविधानविद् अधिकारी उपधारा २ (प्रधानमन्त्रीका हकमा धारा ७६ को, मुख्यमन्त्रीका हकमा धारा १६८ को) मा भएको ‘बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने’ भन्ने व्यवस्थाको कार्यान्वयन गर्दा प्रदेश प्रमुख र राष्ट्रपतिले दुइटा अवस्था विचार गर्नुपर्ने बताउँछन्। “बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नसक्ने अवस्था मनोगत हुनु भएन, वस्तुगत हुनुपर्‍यो। र, संसदीय पद्धतिको बेलायती परम्परा नै के हो भने बलियो र स्थिर सरकार कसरी बन्छ भन्ने हेर्नुपर्‍यो,” उनी भन्छन्, “पार्टीभित्र निहुँ खोज्ने एकाध मानिसहरू हुनसक्छन्। प्रदेश प्रमुख त्यो घरझगडामा प्रवेश गर्न मिल्दैन। पार्टीको ‘टाइटल होल्डर’ले भनेपछि त्यसलाई मान्नुपर्छ। त्यो ‘टाइटल होल्डर’ नै कति आधिकारिक छ भन्ने विवाद आएको अवस्था भए पनि त्यसको छिनोफानो गर्न निर्वाचन आयोग वा अदालतलाई छाड्दिनुपर्छ।”

अर्का पूर्वमहान्यायाधिवक्ता द्रोणराज रेग्मी अहिले प्रदेश प्रमुखहरूबाट राजनीतिक प्रकृतिका निर्णयहरू भइरहेको बताउँछन्। उपधारा २ ले ‘प्रदेश सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको समर्थनमा’ भनेका कारण प्रदेश प्रमुखले दलले दिएको समर्थनलाई मान्यता दिनुपर्ने संविधानको मर्म भएको उनले बताए। “दलहरूले आफ्नो पार्टीको विधान अनुसार निर्णय गरेर अर्को दललाई समर्थन दिन्छन्। त्यसमा कुनै सांसद् असहमत हुनसक्छन्। तर, प्रदेश प्रमुखले त्यही दलको निर्णयलाई मान्यता दिनुपर्छ। सांसद्का व्यक्तिगत विज्ञप्ति हेर्ने होइन,” उनले भने, “प्रदेश प्रमुखहरूले अहिले राजनीतिक प्रकृतिका निर्णय गरिरहेको देखिन्छ। यसलाई चुनौती दिँदै कुनै मुद्दा परेमा सर्वोच्च अदालतले व्याख्या गरिदेला।”
 

KATHMANDU, May 10: Prime Minister KP Oli has failed to secure the confidence of parliament during a vote held at the House of Representatives (HoR) on Monday afternoon.

PM Oli, who opted to seek House’s trust on his government as per the Article 100 (1) of the Constitution of Nepal, managed to garner only 93 votes, which fell short of 43 votes to reach the 136-mark and win the confidence.

Although lawmakers close to Prime Minister Oli’s camp voted for him, at least 28 lawmakers of the party close to the senior leaders duo Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal abstained from voting. Speaker Angi Prasad Sapkota announced that 28 lawmakers were absent during Monday’s trust vote.

Bishal Bhattarai, chief whip of the ruling UML in the lower house of the federal parliament, earlier on Monday warned that the party would take a stern against those defying the whip that was issued on Sunday.

Main opposition Nepali Congress (NC) and Oli’s former coalition partner, CPN (Maoist Center) voted against the Oli-led government. NC has a total 61 lawmakers while the Maoist party has 49 votes including Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota.

The Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), however, got divided during the voting process. The lawmakers close to senior leaders duo Baburam Bhattarai and Upendra Yadav voted against Oli, while those close to Chairman Mahantha Thakur stayed neutral during the trust vote. As many as 15 lawmakers stayed neutral during today’s vote.

What next?

Article 100 (3) states that the Prime Minister shall be relieved of his/her office, if the motion tabled under the Articles 100 (1) and (2) is not endorsed through a majority of total number of the existing number of the House of Representatives.

Constitutional expert Dr Bipin Adhikari said that the status of Prime Minister KP Oli now has turned into a caretaker prime minister as he lost the confidence of parliament. “He’d better resign from his position in such a case. Else, he can remain in the office until a new government is formed,” Adhikari added.

As per the constitutional provisions, the Speaker is required to inform the President about the results of the confidence motion. The President, as per Article 76 (2) of the constitution, shall call the political parties in the House to come forth with new government proposals. “As per Article 76 92), In cases where no party has a clear majority in the House of Representatives as per Article 76 (1), the President shall appoint a member as the Prime Minister the House of Representatives who can command a majority with the support of two or more parties representing to the House of Representatives.

With this, a new coalition government is likely to be formed. A new coalition between the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Center) and JSP or another alliance between the UML and NC are likely. Similarly, UML and Maoist Center can also form an alliance for the formation of a new government. This scenario, however, looks unlikely at least for now as they had just broken their alliance.

Kathmandu, May 10 (PTI) Nepal”s embattled Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli lost a crucial trust vote in the House of Representatives on Monday, pushing the Himalayan nation into further political turmoil amidst a record surge in COVID-19 cases.

Oli, 69, lost the vote of confidence motion, days after the Nepal Communist Party Maoist Centre led by Pushpakamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ withdrew its support, reducing the government to a minority.

Oli, who decided to seek the trust of the 275-member House on his government, managed to garner only 93 votes, which fell short of 43 votes to reach the 136-mark and win the vote of confidence during a special session of the lower house.

A total of 124 members voted against the confidence motion while 15 members stayed neutral, Speaker Agni Sapkota announced. The session was attended by 232 lawmakers.

“As the votes cast in favour of the motion fell short to achieve a majority of the existing strength of the House of Representatives, I hereby declare that the prime minister’s motion to seek a vote of confidence has been rejected,” Sapkota announced before adjourning the House.

With this, Prime Minister Oli is automatically relieved from his post as per Article 100 (3) of the Constitution.

Hours after Oli lost the trust vote and became a caretaker prime minister, President Bidya Devi Bhandari called on political parties to form a majority government within next three days.

The Office of the President said the President has decided to call on parties to form a majority government by Thursday as per Article 76 (2) of the Constitution. According to the provision two or more parties can form a majority government.

During the voting, some 28 lawmakers belonging to Oli’s rival faction led by Madhav Nepal-Jhala Nath Khanal abstained during the voting.

The main Opposition Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), which control 61 and 49 votes, respectively, voted against Oli’s trust motion.

The Janata Samajbadi Party, which has 32 votes, however, was divided. The Mahantha Thakur-led faction stayed neutral while the Upendra Yadav-led group voted against Oli.

After losing the vote of confidence, the Prime Minister is automatically removed from his post and now the new coalition government will be formed as per the constitutional process, said senior Nepali Congress leader Prakash Man Singh.

Senior leader of CPN-Maoist Ganesh Shah said that Oli should immediately resign from the post and pave way for the formation of an alternative government.

The CPN-Maoist will join hands with the Nepali Congress and other parties who voted against Oli to form a coalition government at the earliest, he said.

Meanwhlie, in a joint statement, Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba, CPN-Maoist Centre chairman ”Prachanda” and Chairman of Janata Samajwadi Party Upendra Yadav urged President Bhandari to start the process of forming an alternative government after Oli”s defeat.

As prime minister Oli”s vote of confidence move was defeated by majority votes in Parliament, Oli has been removed from the post, so we call upon President Bhandari to initiate the process of appointment of a new prime minister as per article 76 sub-clause 2 of the Constitution, they said.

There is a provision in the Article 76 sub-clause 2 of the Constitution to form a coalition government with the help of two or more political parties representing in the House.

Constitutional expert Dr Bipin Adhikari said that the status of Oli now has turned into a caretaker prime minister as he lost the confidence of Parliament.

“He’d better resign from his position in such a case. Else, he can remain in the office until a new government is formed,” Adhikari was quoted as saying by MyRepublica newspaper.

With Oli failing the trust vote, the President needs to invoke Article 76 (2) to form a new government. It says in cases where no party has a clear majority in the House, the President shall appoint as the prime minister a member of the House who can command majority with the support of two or more parties in the House of Representatives.

That could provide the Nepali Congress an opportunity to form a government with the backing of the Maoist Centre. But the two parties fall short of around 26 seats to form a new government, The Kathmandu Post reported.

If the House fails to form a government as per Article 76 (2) or a prime minister appointed under this provision fails to win the vote of confidence within 30 days from the appointment, the President shall invoke Article 76 (3), it said.

In that case, Oli is likely to stake claim to the government once again, the report said.

Oli currently is the leader of a party that has the highest number of members in the House. If Oli is appointed under the Constitution, he also needs to win the vote of confidence within 30 days from the date of the appointment.

The prime minister appointed in this manner also needs to secure a vote of confidence within 30 days. Failure to do so would lead to House dissolution, the Kathmandu Post explained.

Taking part in the discussion on Oli’s trust motion, Prachanda said the prime minister does not have any moral ground to seek a vote of confidence in Parliament that he dissolved earlier.

Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 last year after President Bhandari dissolved the House and announced fresh elections on April 30 and May 10 at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

Oli”s move to dissolve the House sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by his rival ”Prachanda”.

In February, the apex court reinstated the dissolved House, in a setback to Oli who was preparing for snap polls.

Known for his pro-China stance, Oli had earlier served as the country”s prime minister from October 11, 2015 to August 3, 2016 during which Kathmandu”s ties with New Delhi had strained.

Oli lost the confidence vote on a day when Nepal recorded the highest single day COVID-19 death tally of 139 in the past 24 hours. According to the latest data released by the Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal also recorded as many as 9,271 new cases of COVID-19 in the past 24 hours.

Both new infections and deaths have risen sharply after Nepal logged Covid-19 cases in four digits on April

KATHMANDU, May 10 (Xinhua) — Nepali Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli lost the vote of confidence in the House of Representatives on Monday, opening door for the formation of a new government more than three years after he became the executive head of the nation.

Against 136 needed to win the vote of confidence in the House with 271 lawmakers, Oli just managed to garner 93 votes. The lawmakers from Madhav Nepal faction (UML) within his party CPN-UML did not vote for him and abstained from the voting process.

The CPN-UML has 121 seats in the House of Representatives which is short of 15 votes to win the vote of confidence in the parliament. However, despite the party whip to vote in favour of the vote of confidence motion, the lawmakers from the UML faction, with 28 votes, did not stand for Oli due to the escalated feud within the party.

The government was pushed into minority after CPN (Maoist Centre) on May 5 withdrew its support for Oli extended in February 2018. Oli, however, had decided to take the vote of confidence on May 2 even before the Maoist Centre withdrew its support.

After losing the vote of confidence Oli has been relieved of the prime ministerial position as per Article 100 (3) of the Constitution of Nepal, according to constitutional experts.

House Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota has written to President Bidya Devi Bhandari after the voting, informing her that Oli has lost the majority in the parliament, which allows her to open the door for the formation of a new government.

“Oli is just a caretaker government after losing the vote of trust,” Bipin Adhikari, an expert on constitution who is a former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law, told Xinhua. “Now the president should start the process towards the formation of a coalition government.”

Currently, Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Centre) and Janata Samajbadi Party are under negotiations to form a government.

The Nepali Congress has 63 seats, with two of them suspended having no voting right while CPN (Maoist Centre) has 49 lawmakers. Similarly, Janata Samajbadi Party has 34 lawmakers, including two suspended having no voting right. The formation of the coalition government is only possible if the three parties come together.

President of the Nepali Congress Sher Bahadur Deuba, Chairperson of the CPN (Maoist Centre) Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Upendra Yadav, Chair of Janata Samajbadi Party, while addressing the parliament on Monday, said the process for the formation of a coalition government should begin.

However, the three parties have not reached an agreement yet. While the Nepali Congress and the CPN (Maoist Centre) are ready to do so, the Janata Samajbadi Party is divided within itself as one of its factions is against the idea.

Constitutional experts say if the three parties fail to form a coalition government, the president will then allow Oli to form a government as a parliamentary party leader of the single largest party. Article 76 (3) of the constitution allows the largest party to form a government if a coalition government is not possible.

“Oli will have to seek vote of confidence in 30 days once (he) gets appointed as a prime minister as a leader of the largest party,” Purna Man Shakya, a professor at Nepal Law Campus, told Xinhua. However, the country may head towards the dissolution of the House once again if Oli fails to get the vote of confidence even after he forms a new government.

Oli had dissolved the House of Representatives while he was still leading a majority government in December last year. The Supreme Court on Feb. 23 overturned the decision saying it was unconstitutional.

Addressing the House of Representatives before Monday’s vote of confidence motion was tabled, Oli had said his government always worked for nationalism, development and taking the country towards the path of prosperity.

“I decided to take a vote of confidence because I believe the parliament has righty assessed the works by the government,” he said in the parliament. “There is no reason why the government shouldn’t get trust vote.”

काठमाडौँ : प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा आलीले राष्ट्रपतिमार्फत मंगलबार दोस्रो पटक संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेश ल्याए । गत वर्षको बैशाख ८ मा ल्याइएको सोही अध्यादेश चर्को विवाद भएपछि फिर्ता लिइएको थियो । त्यही अध्यादेशलाई पुनः मंसिर ३० मा प्रधानमन्त्रीले ल्याए ।

अध्यादेश ल्याएको दुई महिनामा संसद्ले पारित नगरे निष्क्रिय हुने भएकोले सरकारले पुनः अध्यादेश ल्याएको हो । एकतातिर प्रतिनिधि सभाको विशेष अधिवेशन आह्वान भएको छ । सरकार भने अध्यादेशमार्फत काम चलाइरहेको छ ।

यसअघि ल्याइएको अध्यादेश असंवैधानिक भएको भन्दै सर्वोच्च अदालतमा परेको रिट विचाराधीन छ । सर्वोच्चको संवैधानिक इजलासमा विचाराधीन अध्यादेशसम्बन्धी रिटको सुनुवाइ हुन सकेको छैन । प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्रशमशेर राणा भने संवैधानिक परिषद्को बैठकमा सहभागी भइरहेका छन् ।

आइतबार बोलाइएको संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी बैठक नै गैरसंवैधानिक भएको नेपाली कांग्रेस राष्ट्रिय सभा दलका नेता संविधानविद् राधेश्याम अधिकाकारी बताउँछन् । संसद्‍बाट अनुमोदित नभएको अध्यादेश बारम्बार प्रयोगमा ल्याउनु सिँधै गैरसंवैधानिक कदम भएको उनले बताए ।

अध्यादेश अपवादमा ल्याउने हो । त्यसैका लागि यो व्यवस्था राखिएको हो । यसलाई सँधै प्रयोग गर्ने भन्‍ने होइन । अधिवेशन बोलाइएको बेला अध्यादेश ल्याउने कुरा झनै बेठिक छ । लोकतन्त्र र संविधान सिध्याउने कुरा हो ।

‘स्पष्ट रूपले भन्दा असंवैधानिक छ । र, यो संविधान सभा निर्मित संविधानकै बर्खिलापमा छ,’ उनले भने, ‘अध्यादेश अति आवश्यक थियो भने संसद्‍बाट अनुमोदित गराउनु पर्थ्यो । संसद्‍बाट अनुमोदित नभएको अध्यादेश बारम्बार प्रयोगमा ल्याउनु सिँधै गैरसंवैधानिक कदम हो ।’

नेकपा माओवादी केन्द्रका प्रमुख सचेतक देवप्रसाद गुरुङले अध्यादेश ल्याएर शासन चलाउने कुरा सैद्धान्तिक हिसाबले बेठिक भएको बताए । संवैधानिक व्यवस्थाकै गलत प्रयोग हुँदा यसले लोकतन्त्र र संविधान नै सिध्याउने उनले बताए ।

‘अध्यादेश ल्याउने कुरा नै सैद्धान्तिक हिसाबले बेठिक कुरा हो,’ उनले भने, ‘अध्यादेश अपवादमा ल्याउने हो । त्यसैका लागि यो व्यवस्था राखिएको हो । यसलाई सँधै प्रयोग गर्ने भन्‍ने होइन । अधिवेशन बोलाइएको बेला अध्यादेश ल्याउने कुरा झनै बेठिक छ । लोकतन्त्र र संविधान सिध्याउने कुरा हो । अलोकतान्त्रिक छ ।’

अध्यादेश ल्याउने कुरा नै गलत भएको संविधाविद्हरू बताउँछन् । संविधानविद् शम्भू थापा संवैधानकि परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेशको वैधानिकता सकिएकोले फेरि ल्याउने कुरै नभएको बताउँछन्।

‘संसद् छ । यसअघि पनि संसद् बस्यो । त्यति बेलाकै अध्यादेश हो यो,’ उनले भने, ‘६० दिनभित्र संसद्ले पारित नगरेपछि फेरि ल्याउनै पाइएन । यसको वैधानिकतै सकियो । फेरि ल्याउने त कुरै होइन । संसद् बसिसक्यो । स्वीकृत नगरेपछि सकियो । संसद् छ फेरि अध्यादेश ल्याउने भन्‍ने कुरै भएन ।’

‘प्रतिनिधि सभा बोलाइरहेको परिस्थितिमा सरकारको सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले एकमुस्ट अध्यादेश जारी गर्नु भएको छ । यो विरोधाभाषपूर्ण छ,’ उनले भने, ‘यदि चाहेको भए सरकारले संसद्मा प्रस्तुत गर्न सक्थ्यो । तर, सरकारले त्यो चाहेन । अहिले फेरि अध्यादेश ल्याउँदै छ ।’

संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठकमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशको सहभागिताका विषयमा समेत उनले प्रश्‍न गरे । यसले शक्ति पृथकीकरणको सिद्धान्तभन्दा पनि प्रधानन्याधीश सँगैसँगै हिँडेको भान भएको उनको भनाइ छ । ‘यहाँ त जे गरे पनि भएको छ । एक जना मान्छेको इच्छादेखि बाहेक केही भएन,’ उनले भने, ‘प्रधानन्याधीश प्रधानमन्त्रीतिर गाभिएका हुन् कि प्रधानमन्त्री प्रधानन्यायाधीशमा गाभिएका हुने छुट्याउनै गाह्रो भइसक्यो । शक्ति पृथकीकरणको सिद्धान्तभन्दा पनि प्रधानन्याधीश सँगैसँगै हिँडेको देखियो । अहिले लोकतन्त्र भनेकै प्रधानमन्त्री, राष्ट्रपति र प्रधानन्याधीशको भयो नि । अरुलाई छैन ।’

अर्का संविधानविद् डा. विपिन अधिकारी पनि अध्यादेशमार्फत शासन चलाउने परिपाटीले संसदीय परिपाटीलाई नै कमजोर बनाएको बताउँछन् । संसद् छलेर संवैधानिक व्यवस्थालाई आफ्नो सुविधाका लागि प्रयोग गरेको उनको भनाइ छ । ‘प्रतिनिधि सभा बोलाइरहेको परिस्थितिमा सरकारको सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले एकमुस्ट अध्यादेश जारी गर्नु भएको छ । यो विरोधाभाषपूर्ण छ,’ उनले भने, ‘यदि चाहेको भए सरकारले संसद्मा प्रस्तुत गर्न सक्थ्यो । तर, सरकारले त्यो चाहेन । अहिले फेरि अध्यादेश ल्याउँदै छ । मूल मुद्दा संसदीय परिपाटीलाई बलियो बनाएर लैजाने कि यसलाई आफ्नो सुविधाका लागि प्रयोग गर्ने भन्‍ने हो ।’

यसमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशको समेत सहभागिता अफ्ठ्यारो भएको उनको भनाइ छ । यसल कानुनी शासनको प्रत्याभूति नै हुन नसकेको उनले बताए । ‘यसअघि ल्याइएको अध्यादेश असंवैधानिक भन्दै सर्वोच्चमा रिट विचाराधीन छ । उहाँको आफ्नै संलग्‍नता छ । फेरि दोस्रो पटक आयो । यसमा राजनीतिक संस्कृति विथोलियो,’ उनले भने, ‘कानुनी शासनको प्रत्याभूति कसरी हुन्छ ? यो प्रक्रियामा उहाँको संलग्‍नता अफ्ठ्यारो कुरा हो । उहाँले पहिले जुन विवाद छ त्यसलाई निरुपण गर्नुपर्ने हो । त्यसलाई थाती राखेर अन्य कुरा अगाडि बढाउदा कानुनी शासनमा असर पर्छ ।’

प्रधानन्यायाधीशको भूमिकालाई संसद्ले कसरी हेर्छ ?

अध्यादेशसम्बन्धी रिट संवैधानिक इजलासमा विचाराधीन छ । त्यो रिटको सुनुवाइ नगरेर प्रधानन्यायाधीश स्वयं संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठकमा सहभागिता जनाइरहेका छन् । संसद् अधिवेशन आह्वान भइसकेको अवस्थामा ल्याइएको अध्यादेशअन्तरगत बस्न लागेको संवैधानिक बैठकमा प्रधान्यायाधीशको सहभागितालाई संसद्ले चाहि कसरी हेर्छ ?

संवैधानिक बैठकमा प्रधानन्याधीश सहभागी नै हुन नहुने नेता अधिकारीको भनाइ छ । अदालतमा विचाराधीन मुद्दाको छिनोफानो नगरी प्रधानन्याधीश बैठकमा जाँदा त्यो विवादित मात्रै होइन प्रकरणकै रूपमा परिभाषित हुने उनको भनाइ छ ।

‘प्रधानन्याधीश यस्ता कुरामा सहभागी हुन नहुनु पर्ने हो,’ उनले भने, ‘उहाँलाई संसद्ले कसरी हेर्ने ? त्यो यसको अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रताको कुरा हो । अहिले टिकाटिप्पणी गर्न मिल्दैन । गर्नु हुँदैन ।’
‘संवैधानिक परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेश र त्यो अध्यादेशअनुरुप नियुक्त पात्रहरूका विषयमा सर्वोच्च अदालतमा मुद्दा विचाराधीन छ,’ उनले भने, ‘ती कुनै पनि मुद्दा टुंगो लागेको छैनन् । ती मुद्दाको टुंगो नलागेसम्म प्रधानन्यायाधीश कुनै पनि हालतमा संवैधानिक परिषद्को बैठकमा भाग लिन जान मिल्दैन । मुद्दाको छिनोफानो नगरीकन प्रधानन्यायाधीश संवैधानिक परिषद्को बैठकमा जानुभयो भने त्यो निश्‍चित रुपमा विवादित मात्र होइन कि प्रकरणमै रुपमा परिभाषित हुनेछ ।’

माओवादी प्रमुख सचेतक गुरुङले अध्यादेश अनुरुप बोलाइएको परिषद् बैठकमा प्रधानन्याधीशको सहभागितालाई सकारात्मक तरिकाले हेर्न नसकिने बताए । तर, महाअभियोगका विषयमा भने संसद्को अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रताको विषय भएकोमा उनले टिप्पणी गर्न चाहेनन् । ‘प्रधानन्याधीश यस्ता कुरामा सहभागी हुन नहुनु पर्ने हो,’ उनले भने, ‘उहाँलाई संसद्ले कसरी हेर्ने ? त्यो यसको अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रताको कुरा हो । अहिले टिकाटिप्पणी गर्न मिल्दैन । गर्नु हुँदैन ।’

संविधानविद् शम्भू थापा संसद् नै कसैलाई नचाहिने जस्तो भइसकेको टिप्पणी गर्छन् । ‘संसद्ले गम्भीर भएर हेर्ने बेला भएको छ । प्रधान्यायाधीश खेलबाड होइन नि,’ उनले भने, ‘यहाँ त संसद र संविधान नै कसैलाई नचाहिने जस्तो भइसक्यो । चाहिने भए संसद्का रक्षक भन्‍ने अगाडि आउनु पर्दैन ? बोल्नु पर्दैन । संसद्लाई क्रियाशील बनाउनु पर्‍यो नि ।’

The constitution of Federal Republic of Nepal grants different powers to different levels of governments. But, in reality, federal government has been taking all major decisions unilaterally, leaving local levels powerless.

The constitution hands local governments rights to manage school education, provincial government to sort out matters concerning higher education related with provincial university and federal government to oversee central university planning, among others.

But, in absence of Federal Education Act to clarify the constitution’s provisions, a kind of lingering dispute has surfaced between federal and local governments as to who holds the rights to make decisions on critical matters.

A month or so ago, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) under the federal government had decided to shut down schools across the country for four days citing excessive air pollution as the cause. That announcement sparked a debate among the education stakeholders, who blamed the federal government for interfering in the rights stipulated for local governments.

Stating that some local governments including Biratnagar Metropolitan City, Bhimad Municipality, Tanahun, Bhadrapur Municipality, Jhapa, Rong Rural Municipality, Ilam Municipality and Maijogmai Municipality in Ilam had refused to comply, claiming that the pollution had no effect on them and so had no reason to close their schools, which they kept open.

The grudge of the local government against the central one is not limited to the issue of air pollution. They are equally unhappy with the federal government’s decision to close schools time and again citing the coronavirus pandemic. “The federal government can only suggest the local governments, but cannot impose their decision on us,” they complained.

Ashok Kumar Byanju Shrestha, Mayor of Dhulikhel Municipality and President of Municipal Association of Nepal, said, “Everyone should abide by the constitutional provisions. If the law cannot protect our rights, it must be amended.”
“Since the federal government does not seem to understand the essence of federalism, they should undertake serious study on it,” he added, ironically.
He also shared the local governments have complete constitution-guaranteed jurisdiction over the matters concerning school education.

Bhim Parajuli, Mayor of Biratnagar Metropolitan City, remarked that the representatives of federal government didn’t want to relinquish their authority and that they should suggest the local government on crucial issues and not meddle in their rights.

However, Deepak Sharma, Spokesperson for the MoEST, said that the federal government had not interfered in the rights of local governments but that it acted in line with the legal provisions.

He added that these days local governments were exercising their rights, including appointment and transfer of teachers.

However, appointment of permanent teachers and operation of Secondary Education Examination (SEE) are being conducted by federal government in accordance with the prevailing laws, he shared.

Dr. Mana Wagle, an educationist, said federalism couldn’t be implemented fully in the education sector to date for lack of an all-powerful federal education act despite local levels having constitution-assured powers.

“Authorities’ lackadaisical attitude towards bringing a new education act is condemnable. All these disputes regarding which level of government has the jurisdiction over what affair will evaporate right away once that comes into effect and explains the provisions unequivocally,” he asserted.

Dr. Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional lawyer, said that the local level governments hold so many rights to govern themselves based on their interests but that the problems persisted was only because the implementation of the constitution was still in its early stages.

He informed that in terms of using exclusive powers, some local governments seem more capable than others to exercise them and that the federalism would be more robust in coming days as it would emerge stronger from its failings and mistakes.
“Federalism evolves out of its own experience,” he concluded.