Category: Quotes

Constitutional affairs experts have questioned Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s decision to reshuffle his Cabinet to induct eight ministers, five of them former Maoist leaders, and change the portfolio of five of his ministers.

While critics say the Oli government has been reduced to a care-taker status and the prime minister can’t reshuffle his Cabinet, supporters say he has every right to do so.

“The Oli government has been reduced to a caretaker status and a prime minister of such a government does have the moral, political and constitutional authority to reshuffle his Cabinet,” senior advocate Chandra Kanta Gyawali, an expert of constitutional affairs, told the Post.

Six days after the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the subsequent resignation of seven ministers, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Friday inducted eight ministers and a minister of state into his Cabinet, changed the portfolio of six ministers and sacked a minster and a minister of state.

Senior advocate Bipin Adhikari also criticised the move. “The decision to expand the Cabinet of a caretaker government is against the spirit of the political and constitutional culture.”

The newly appointed ministers are: Top Bahadur Rayamajhi (Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation) Mani Thapa ( Ministry of Water Supply), Prabhu Sah (Ministry of Urban Development), Gauri Shankar Chaudhary (Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security)

And Dawa Lama (Ministry of Youth and Sports) from among the former Maoists and Prem Ale (Minister for Forest and Environment), Ganesh Thagunna (Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration), Juli Kumari Mahato (Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizens) and Bimala Biswokarma (Minister of State for Industry, Commerce and Supplies).

Oli’s trusted lieutenant and deputy parliamentary party leader Subas Chandra Nembang rejected criticism levelled against Oli for exercising his authority. “Who said the prime minister cannot reshuffle his Cabinet ?” said Nembang. “In the US, even President Trump whose government has turned into a lame-duck is taking major and important decisions.”

Oli’s picks for ministerial berths seem to be targeted at rewarding members of his party for their loyalty, after seven members of his Cabinet stepped down recently.

At a time when the ruling party has virtually split into two factions, Prime Minister Oli was under pressure to accommodate some former Maoist leaders in his camp so that he could show the people that the majority of members of the Nepal Communist Party are with him, leaders close to Oli said.

Prabhu Sah, who had earlier opposed Oli’s move to dissolve the House, had joined the Dahal-Nepal camp and participated in the group’s central working committee meeting until Wednesday. But as soon as former prime minister Madhav Nepal was elected chair of the faction, Sah had objected to it and. Both Nepal and Sah have their constituencies in Rautahat and they don’t share good relations, a central committee member said. Oli tapped into his dissatisfaction and offered him a post in his Cabinet, a ruling party leader said.

Former Maoist leaders and Standing Committee members Rayamajhi and Thapa were lobbying in favour of Prime Minister Oli since the relation between Oli and Dahal turned sour.

Minister for Sports and Youth Jagat Bishwokarma and Minister of State for Industry, Commerce and Supplies, Moti Dugar have been left out of the reshuffle.

Oli has also reshuffled the portfolios of existing ministers—Health Minister Bhanubhakta Dhakal has now been given the tourism portfolio Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration Hridayesh Tripathi is now the new Health Minister. Similarly, Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizens Minister Lilanath Shrestha takes charge of the Ministry of Law. Shiva Maya Tumbahangphe, the erstwhile law minister, will now oversee the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation.

Minister for Land Reforms, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation Minister has been given the responsibility of the Agriculture Ministry and Urban Development Minister Krishna Gopal Shrestha will now lead the Education and Science Ministry.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet meeting, which convened after the new ministers took their oath of office on Friday, recommended President Bidhya Devi Bhandari to summon the regular session of the Upper House from January 1, according to a minister.

KATHMANDU, Nepal — Nepal’s top leader dissolved parliament Sunday amid infighting among members of the governing party, throwing into doubt the political future of a strategically important Himalayan country where China and India have long jockeyed for influence.

Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli called for the dissolution of the lower house of parliament despite protests from his own Nepal Communist Party and opposition groups, including the largest, Nepali Congress. Nepal is now set to hold elections starting in late April, more than a year earlier than the expected vote in November 2022.

Oli made his move in the face of rising dissatisfaction with his job performance even within the ranks of his own party. He was elected to a second stint as prime minister in 2017 on promises of tamping down corruption and forging stronger ties with China and its economic growth machine.

But Oli’s administration has been plagued with its own corruption allegations as well as criticism of his government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which has devastated an economy that has long depended on tourism and remittances from its citizens abroad. Divisions also lingered within his party, which was created by the alliance of two smaller communist parties in 2017.

By dissolving the lower house of parliament, Oli might avoid a potential no-confidence vote from lawmakers. But experts said that he lacked the power to dissolve parliament and that the move could be challenged in Nepal’s highest court.

“Under existing constitutional provisions, dissolution of parliament can’t be the prime minister’s prerogative when there are many other options to form a new government,” said Bipin Adhikari, former dean of Kathmandu University Law School and a constitutional expert. “It’s an unconstitutional step.”

The political turbulence in Nepal is taking place amid rising tensions between China and India, its two powerful and increasingly bellicose neighbors. Their rivalry has intensified as China has made increasingly forceful claims toward disputed land along their rugged border in the Himalayas.

Oli on Sunday urged Bidya Devi Bhandari, Nepal’s president and ceremonial head of state, to dissolve the House of Representatives. Bhandari granted the request and called for elections in May.

Oli’s move effectively blocked his former political partner, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, from threatening his position. Dahal, a former prime minister known as Prachanda, is chair of the Communist Party and was instrumental in forming the alliance that carried the group to victory in 2017. The two parties later merged, and party officials agreed that Dahal would eventually share power, according to an agreement disclosed when Oli was about to complete two years in office.

Lawmakers had proposed a motion to hold a vote of no confidence that would call on Dahal to become prime minister. On Sunday, seven of the government’s 25 ministers resigned from parliament in protest.

Nepal, one of the poorest countries in South Asia, is still struggling with the pandemic. Official figures suggest the coronavirus is under control. But testing remains spotty, global mountain climbers are staying home and Nepal’s migrant workers are jobless in many places around the world.

An opposition leader, Ramesh Paudyal of the party Bibeksheel Nepali, accused the health minister, Bhanu Bhakta Dhakal, of being involved in corruption while procuring medical equipment from China to contain the spread of the coronavirus. Activists and local news outlets said the price of some medical equipment procured from China was much higher than market prices. Nepal’s anti-corruption agency has been investigating the matter. The government has disputed the allegations.

In a dramatic turn of events, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli today decided to dissolve the House of Representatives and call mid-term polls to be held in two phases.

Oli, who has been mired in an intra-party feud with the rival faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), recommended dissolution of the HoR and President Bidhya Devi Bhandari approved it within hours. She also announced that general elections will be held on April 30 and May 10.

A press release issued by the President’s Office stated that the decision to dissolve the House was taken by the Council of Ministers in accordance with Article 76 (1) (7) and Article 85 of the constitution.

The PM’s move comes in the backdrop of the rival faction of the NCP pressuring him to step down either as PM or party cochair.

The PM had fallen into minority in all the key bodies of the party — the Secretariat, the Standing Committee and the Central Committee — and his opponents were threatening to take action against him on the basis of majority.

A few days ago, 83 NCP lawmakers had signed a petition seeking special session of Parliament, indicating that the PM might not hold majority in the party’s parliamentary party, which has 173 members.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari said the PM’s move was unconstitutional and the president should not have endorsed it. Unlike the 1990 constitution, the present constitution does not have a provision that allows a majority government to dissolve the House, he added.

“Under the 1990 constitution, former prime ministers Girija Prasad Koirala and Manmohan Adhikari had used their prerogatives to dissolve the House, but under the new constitution the PM cannot dissolve the House,” he added.

Another constitutional expert Chandra Kanta Gyawali claimed that the PM’s action amounted to a constitutional coup.

Former President of Nepal Bar Association Shambhu Thapa said the government could recommend dissolution of HoR only if it didn’t have the numbers. Actions of the PM and the president have no constitutional validity, as Oli was heading a majority government, he added.

Nepali Congress lawmaker Radhe Shyam Adhikari, who is also a senior advocate, said if all the parties agreed to go to the polls, HoR polls could take place, but if they decided to challenge the move in the court and protests broke out on the streets, the constitutional bench would have to test the constitutionality of the PM’s recommendation.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s government on Sunday recommended House dissolution, raising questions about its constitutional validity.

The Constitution of Nepal promulgated in 2015 does not have a clear provision for House dissolution.

What does the constitution say?

Article 85 (1) states that unless dissolved earlier pursuant to this constitution, the term of the House of Representatives shall be five years.

Since it was established in 2018 following elections under the new constitution in November-December 2017, the House of Representatives has not been dissolved earlier, its term shall be five years.

Purna Man Shakya, also an expert on constitutional affairs, said dissolution of the House is not possible unless there is a problem in the formation of government.

“There is no provision in the constitution for the prime minister leading nearly a two-thirds majority government to dissolve the House,” said Shakya, the chairman-elect of the Supreme Court Bar Association. “If the President refuses to block the government’s move, only the Supreme Court can revive the House. There is no other way.”

Another provision that mentions House dissolution is in Article 76.

The different clauses of this article relate to the situation when the prime minister appointed to lead a government in a hung parliament cannot get the required majority vote with support from another party or other parties.

Article 76 (7) states, “In cases where the Prime Minister appointed under clause (5) fails to obtain a vote of confidence or the Prime Minister cannot be appointed, the President shall, on recommendation of the Prime Minister, dissolve the House of Representatives and appoint a date of election so that the election to another House of Representatives is completed within six months.”

Clause 5 relates to a member of the House of Representative claiming that he or she can get the required majority vote.

Article 76 (7) is the only clause in the constitution that clearly mentions when the House of Representatives can be dissolved.

Currently, Prime Minister Oli enjoys not just a simple majority but nearly two-thirds majority as his party has over 170 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives.

Bipin Adhikari, former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law, said that Oli’s House dissolution move is unconstitutional and that the President must not approve it.

“It is the time for the President to use her conscience and reject the executive’s unconstitutional recommendation,” Adhikari told the Post. “She should immediately hold a meeting with all the parties in Parliament and experts.”

Prime Minister K P Oli’s surprise proposal on Sunday to dissolve the Lower House of Parliament in response to challenge from party rivals has been met with sharp and widespread criticism in Nepal.

Many see the move as unconstitutional, ill-advised and having the potential to destroy Nepal’s hard-won democracy and push the country over the cliff. Many political leaders, activists and commentators took to social media to say that it was up to President Bidya Devi Bhandari and the Supreme Court to overturn the Cabinet decision.

However, President Bhandari endorsed the recommendation on Monday afternoon itself and announced elections to the Lower House on 30 April and 10 May 2021.

“The 2017 Constitution does not give the head of government the right to dissolve the House if there is still the possibility of an alternative government being formed,” says Bipin Adhikari, an expert in Constitutional law. “This clause was included in the Constitution to ensure stability in the country.”

Indeed, it is almost unheard of in a democracy for a government that commands a two-thirds majority in Parliament to dissolve the House that it leads just because there is an internal challenge to the head of government.

However, it has emerged that Prime Minister Oli made the move after he got wind that some members of the Dahal faction were going to the Parliament Secretariat to register a vote of no confidence signed by 90 members against him. Dahal reportedly heard about the decision to dissolve the Lower House even before he heard back from those registering the motion.

The NCP’s Standing Committee met on Sunday evening and decided to propose ‘disciplinary action’ against K P Oli in the forthcoming Central Committee meeting on 23 December.

Prime Minister Oli and his arch nemesis party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal have had an uneasy relationship ever since their UML and Maoist parties merged to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). The infighting intensified this year as Dahal’s faction within the party put increasing pressure on Oli to either give up his party post, or the prime ministership, or both.

Dahal submitted a 19-page document to the party, listing what he said were Oli’s infractions – mainly not consulting the party on key decisions and poor governance. Oli fired back a 36-page reply, and the documents were to be discussed in a party Standing Committee meeting that Oli has been trying postpone.

Oli has played brinkmanship the whole of 2020, raising the issue of a border dispute with India to buy time, bringing up the excuse of the Covid-19 pandemic to suspend Parliament sittings. And he even passed an ordinance to amend the constitution to allow breakup of parties, and registered his erstwhile UML with the Election Commission.

He had President Bhandari hurriedly sign an ordinance last week to change the rules governing the appointment of officials of constitutional bodies after two members of the Constitutional Council did not attend meetings to decide on nominations.

On Saturday, Prime Minster Oli spent a hectic day meeting Dahal at his residence, visiting former Maoist members of his Cabinet, trying to convince them that Dahal written document would not be presented at the Standing Committee meeting.

It appears that the effort failed, which is why he made the dramatic move on Sunday that took everyone by surprise. In order to deal with the internal power struggle within the NCP, Oli has defied the constitution to propose a dissolution of the Lower House.

Even senior NCP members close to Oli have not openly supported his move, and were apparently not consulted. Others have said it is counter-productive and political suicidal for the prime minister. Some say Oli may just be using the threat of this drastic measure as a final bargaining chip against Dahal, but even they admit that the move is fraught with dangers for the Nepali state.

“Prime Minsiter Oli’s decision goes against the basic tenets of the constitution, which does not give the prime minister any special authority to dissolve the Lower House, it is illegal,” says another constitutional expert, Bhimarjun Acharya.

Both Adhikari and Acharya had said President Bhandari should reject the proposal, and the Supreme Court should rule that the move is unconstitutional.

“If the president signs the proposal for dissolution at the same speed at which it was presented, the Supreme Court must step in, and when it does I am 100% certain it will overturn the move,” Adhikari told Nepali Times before the President endorsed the recommendation.

Predictably, the opposition Nepali Congress (NC), which has been in limbo since it lost the 2017 elections, has smelled blood. The NC’s Gagan Thapa tweeted: ‘This is an unconstitutional and anti-democratic move by the Prime Minister, and it proves that the NCP has lost the mandate it got from the people three years ago.’

Baburam Bhattarai, the former Maoist ideologue and now with the Janata Samajbadi Party posted a video on social media saying: “All political parties and democratic forces, including those inside the NCP, should unite to protest this move.’

President Bidya Devi Bhandari is close to Oli, and has in the past been doing his bidding. She had three options: endorse the proposal to dissolve Parliament, reject the proposal, or call Dahal and Oli again for a meeting to sort out their differences and come up with a compromise. She appears to have chosen the first option.

There will most certainly be a writ in the Supreme Court challenging the President’s ratification and then the question is which way Chief Justice Cholendra Rana will decide. As per the Constitution, most experts say Prime Minister Oli’s move stands on very iffy legal foundations.

On Sunday afternoon, members of the Dahal faction of the NCP were deep in meetings at his residence in Khumaltar. The NC was having a meeting as well, while the NCP Standing Committee scheduled for Sunday at 1pm at Baluwatar has yet to be held.

Nepal’s president has dissolved Parliament at the request of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s cabinet and announced that general elections would be held in April and May, more than a year ahead of schedule.

Sunday’s move plunges the Himalayan country, which has seen revolving-door governance since street protests restored multi-party democracy in 1990, into political turmoil as it battles the coronavirus pandemic.

President Bidhya Devi Bhandari’s office said in a statement the next vote will be held on April 30 and May 10, as recommended by the cabinet following an emergency meeting.

Oli, 68, pushed for a fresh mandate after the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) accused him of sidelining his party in government decisions and appointments. He had led an alliance with former Maoist rebels to a landslide victory in 2017.

“The prime minister has lost the majority in the parliamentary party, central committee and the secretariat of the party,” said Bishnu Rijal, an NCP central committee member.

“Instead of seeking a compromise within the party, he chose to dissolve Parliament.”

Sandwiched between China and India, politics in Nepal is also influenced by the priorities of its giant neighbours. India has been pushing back against Beijing’s growing clout in a country that New Delhi considers its own back yard.

Oli aide Rajan Bhattarai said the prime minister had acted in response to the backlash from his party, which had also asked him to consider quitting as its president.

Politicians and social media users said the ruling party should have tried out other political combinations to run the country instead of calling an untimely election when its tourism-dependent economy has been battered by the pandemic.

Nepal’s 2015 charter does not give the prime minister the prerogative to dissolve Parliament without exhausting alternatives, constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari said.

“It is unconstitutional at the first sight,” he said, adding that the decision could be challenged in the Supreme Court, which may take a couple of weeks to decide its legality.

Dozens of protesters gathered near the prime minister’s office, calling the move unconstitutional.

After his 2017 win, Oli had vowed to ensure political stability and fight corruption and poverty but has made little progress, especially since the pandemic.

Coronavirus infections have reached 253,772, with 1,788 deaths, in the country of 30 million people.

“PM Oli chose to betray the people’s mandate for stability, development and dignity,” former diplomat Dinesh Bhattarai tweeted.

https://kantipurtv.com/news/2020-12-17/20201217134949.html

पञ्चायती व्यवस्थादेखि गणतन्त्रसम्म सधैं राजनीति र प्रशासनिक क्षेत्रमा प्रधानमन्त्रीदेखि मन्त्री, सांसद, सचिव, निर्देशकसम्म रहँदै आएको सिरहाको बस्तीपुर गाउँविकासको आधारभूत सुविधाबाट भने वञ्चित छ । दुर्गममा जस्तै यो गाउँमा पनि सिँचाइ, खानेपानी,सडक, लागायतका विकासका कुनै पूर्वाधार छैनन् । यो सिरहाको बस्तीपर गाउँ हो । पञ्चायतकाल र शाहीकालका चर्चित पूर्वप्रधानमन्त्री तुलसी गिरि, मन्त्री रुद्रगिरि, नेपाली कांग्रेसका नेता प्रदीप गिरि, नेपाल प्रज्ञाप्रतिष्ठानका कुलपति ईश्वर बराल, संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी कान्तिबाल अस्पतालका संस्थापक मणिन्द्ररञ्जन बराल, माहालेखाका निर्देशक खेमरञ्जन बराल लगायत सवै बस्तीपुरका वासिन्दा हुन् । हाल यस गाउँका प्रदीप गिरि सहित निर्जला राउत , सरिता गिरी गरी तीन जना प्रतिनिधि सभाका सदस्य छन् । तर बिडम्वना पूर्व प्रधानमन्त्रीदेखि सांसदसम्म रहेको यो गाउँ बत्तिमुनिको अँध्यारो भने झैं छ । सिँचाइ, खानेपानी, सडक, लगायतका विकासका कुनै पूर्वाधार यो गाउँमा छैन । एकै गाउँका तीनतीन जना सांसद् हुँदापनि गाउँमा कुनै विकासका लागि पहल नगरेको कांग्रेस नेता प्रदीप गिरिकी बहिनी डाक्टर मञ्जुला गिरिको गुनासो छ । वर्तमान समयमापनि प्रतिनिधि सभामा तीन जनासांसद रहेको यो बस्तीपुर गाउँमा वडा कार्यालयको आफ्नै भवन छैन । भने स्वस्थ्य चौकी समेत भवनको अभावमा विद्यालयको जीर्ण भवनमा छ । राज्यले सांसदलाई स्थानीय विकास पूर्वाधारका नाममा उपलब्ध गराएको रकम चााहि सांसदले के गर्छन् त ? कांग्रेसका नेता प्रदीप गिरिका काका कुलदीप गिरिले आजभन्दा एक सय १० वर्ष अघि खोटाङ्गबाट झरेर यो गाउँमा बस्ती बसालेका हुन् । एउटै गाउँका तीन तीन जना सांसद प्रतिनिधिसभामा हुँदा पनि गाउँमा सामान्य आधारभूत सुविधासम्मको व्यवस्था गरिंदैन भने सांसदलाई स्थानीय पूर्वाधार विकासका लागि राज्यले वर्षैपिच्छे किन बजेट उपलब्ध गराउानु भन्ने स्थानीय बासिन्दाको प्रश्न जायज मान्न सकिन्छ ।  ।

The Special Court has released most of the defendants in the Baluwatar land scam case either on bail or on general dates.

According to the court, it has so far heard 100 of the 175 defendants implicated in the case by the Commission for Investigation for Abuse of Authority in February this year.

“The court has so far sent two defendents into judicial custody including Deep Basnyat, former chief commissioner of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, and Krishna Prasad Poudel, former staff member at the Dillibazar-based land revenue office. Others were either released on bail or on general dates,” said Pushpa Raj Pandeya, spokesperson for the Special Court.

Former chairperson of the Special Court Gauri Bahadur Karki said the Special Court did the right thing by sending Basnyat to judicial custody considering his track record and his position of power that he allegedly abused.

“Such a decision is necessary to make an example,” he told the Post. “Even though Basnyat can move the Supreme Court, it will be hard for the Supreme Court to overturn the order of the Special Court considering the impression such a decision would have among the public about the Supreme Court.”

On Sunday, Special Court Chairperson Prem Raj Karki and the judge duo, Abdul Aziz Musalman and Nitya Nanda Pandeya, passed down the order to send Basnyat to judicial custody.

The bench said that Basnyat had to be sent to judicial custody as he admitted to having prepared and taken proposal of expanding the area of Prime Minister’s residence to the Cabinet after securing approval of the then deputy prime minister Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar.

Basnyat was secretary at the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure at the time. He now stands accused of creating fake tenants to distribute the government-owned land in Baluwatar to private individuals.

Earlier this year, Poudel, the former staff member at Dillibazar land revenue office, was also sent to judicial custody in connection to the case.

According to Bipin Adhikari, former dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, the court usually does not send anybody into judicial custody as long as the courts sees the possibility that the defendants could destroy evidence, threaten their victims, or run away.

Although the Special Court sent Basnyat and Poudel to judicial custody, it issued conditional release orders in case of former ministers Dambar Shrestha, Chabbi Raj Pant and Chandra Dev Joshi.

Shrestha and Pant were released on bail while Joshi was released on a general date.

Considering the decision taken by the Cabinet based on Shrestha’s proposal, the court had sought Rs500,000 as bail to release him. An equal amount in bail was sought from former Pant.

The Special Court had released Joshi on general date last month citing his age of 83 years, weak physical condition, weak financial condition and the risk of Covid-19.

“I don’t know on what basis the court passed its order in the case of defendants charged in the Baluwatar land scam,” Adhikari, the former dean of Kathmandu University, said, noting that many of the accused had not even been tried yet.

Gachchhadar, the former deputy prime minister; Rukma Shumsher Rana, son of late Nepali Congress leader Subarna Shumsher Rana; Min Bahadur Gurung, the owner of Bhatbhateni Supermarket; and Ram Kumar Subedi and Sobha Kanta Dhakal, the alleged middlemen in the case, are yet to present themselves before the court.

“We have sent dates for their presence at the court through the district courts concerned,” said Pandeya, the Special Court spokesperson.

Anti-corruption campaigners argue that it is essential that the court acts tough against those involved in major corruption scandals to deter other corrupt people.

Khem Raj Regmi, president of Transparency International, Nepal, an anti-corruption advocacy group, said that it is necessary to send serious offenders to judicial custody.

“I don’t know on what basis orders were passed in the case of the defendants in the Baluwatar land scam. I hope the court might have used its wisdom correctly,” he said.

काठमाडौं : तेह्र महिनापछि नेकपा अध्यक्षसमेत रहेका प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीले संवैधानिक परिषद्‍ बैठक बोलाए । तर ओलीकै कारण गणकपुरक संख्या नपुगेर बैठक दुई पटक सर्‍यो । मंसिर २८ गते बोलाएको बैठक प्रमुख प्रतिपक्ष दल नेपाली कांग्रेसका सभापति शेरबहादुर देउवा जान नभ्याउने भएपछि सर्‍यो । त्यसपछि प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले मंसिर ३० गतेका लागि बैठक बोलाए । उक्त बैठकमा पहिलो बैठकमा नभ्याएको भन्दै सार्न लगाएका कांग्रेस सभापति देउवा त गए तर सभामुख अग्‍निप्रसाद सापकोटा गएनन् ।

प्रमुख प्रतिपक्ष दल कांग्रेस सभापति देउवा बैठकमा गए र नेकपाबाट सभामुख भएका सापकोटा किन गएनन् ? सबैको चासो हुने नै भयो । कांग्रेस नेताहरुका अनुसार संवैधानिक दायित्व पूरा गर्न र सम्भावित अध्यादेश रोक्न पनि देउवा बैठकमा सहभागी भएको बताउँछन् । संवैधानिक कोरमसम्बन्धी पुरानो अध्यादेश ब्यूँताउन सक्ने खतराका कारण पनि मंगलबार बिहानको बैठकमा देउवा उपस्थित भएका थिए । अन्तत: सरकारले अध्यादेश ब्यूँताइ छाड्‍यो ।

सरकारले गत वैशाखमा संवैधानिक परिषद्को कोरमसम्बन्धी अध्यादेश जारी गरेको थियो । जसमा कोरम संख्या घटाइएको थियो । देउवा अनुपस्थित भएमा अनेकन दोष लगाउँदै त्यो पुरानो अध्यादेश जारी हुन सक्ने खतरा टार्न पनि उपस्थित भएको कांग्रेस नेताहरुले बताए । तर देउवाको उपस्थितीले व्यर्थ झै बन्यो । किनकी बैठक सकिए लगत्तै मन्त्रिपरिषद्‍ राखेर प्रधनमन्त्री ओलीले मन्त्रीलाई समेत जानकारी नदिइ अध्यायदेश ल्याए । जुन अध्यादेश तत्काल राष्ट्रपतिले प्रमाणित गरेर सहकार्य देखाइन । यसबाट स्पष्ट हुन्छ ओलीको द्वन्द्व प्रमुख प्रतिपक्षसँग होइन आफ्नै दलभित्र हो ।

सुरु गरौं विवादबाट
हुन त पार्टी एकतादेखि नै नेकपामा विवाद छ । तर पछिल्‍लो पटक कर्णाली प्रदेश सरकारबाट सुरु भएको सत्‍तारुढ नेकपा विवाद बहुमत र अल्पमतबाट हटाउनेसम्म पुग्‍यो । नेकपा सचिवालयका ९ सदस्यमध्ये पाँच सदस्य एक जुट भएर ओलीलाई दवाब दिइरहेका छन् । बैठकको निर्णय नमान्‍ने ओलीको अडानबीच कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहाल-बरिष्ठ नेता माधवकुमार नेपाल समूहको दवाबले सचिवालयदेखि स्थायी कमिटी बैठकसम्म बस्‍यो । बैठक छल्दै आएका ओली अन्ततः बैठकमा सहभागी त भए तर आफ्‍नै पार्टीभित्रको विवाद समाधान नगरी संवैधानिक परिषद्‍को बैठक बोलाए । कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष दाहालको धारणा पनि यहि थियो । ‘पार्टीको विवाद समाधान गर्नतिर चाँहि ओलीको ध्यान छैन् । समाधान गर्नु त कता हो कता उल्टै ओली पार्टीको बैठक छलेर संवैधानिक परिषद्‍को बैठक बोलाउनु उचित हुन्‍छ ?’ दाहाल निकट एक नेताले प्रश्‍न गरे,‘अहिले के जरुरी थियो । अध्यादेश ल्याएर नियुक्ति गर्न । आकाशै त खसेको थिएन । यो जानाजान भिड्न खोजेका हुन् । उनी पहिलेदेखि नै पार्टी फुटाउने षडयन्त्रमा छन् ।’

सभामुखका विधिका कुरा
हुन्‌त सभामुख सापकोटा बैठकमा नजानुका अनेक तर्क होलान तर मुख्य कुरा नेकपा विवाद नै हो । नेकपा विवादको बाछिटा संवैधानिक परिषद्‍को बैठकमा पुगेको कुरामा दुई मत नहोला । प्रधानमन्त्रीले बोलाएको बैठकमा सभामुख किन गएनन् भन्‍ने प्रश्‍नमा सभामुखका प्रेस सल्‍लाहकार श्रीधर न्यौपानेले भने ‘सभामुख बैठकमा नजानुको मुख्य कुरा पर्याप्त तयारी र समन्वय नहुनु हो ।’ तर सभामुख निकट स्रोतहरुका अनुसार प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले संवैधानिक निकायमा नियुक्तिका सूची एकलौटी गरेपछि बैठकमा नगएको बताउँछन् । ‘उक्त सूचीको रोष्टरसमेत सभामुखलाई प्रधानमन्त्रीले पठाएनन । किनकी प्रधानमन्त्री विधि र प्रक्रिया भन्दा पनि आफ्नालाई पोस्‍ने प्रवृत्तिमा छन,’ सभामुख निकाटकाले भने । संवैधानिक निकायमा ४६ प्रमुख तथा सदस्यहरू नियुक्ति गर्नुपर्ने छ । बैठक बस्‍नुअघि परिषद्का सबै सदस्यहरुसँग छलफल गर्नुपर्नेमा ओलीले उम्‍मेद्‍वारको सूची आफैँ राखे । बैठकको विषयमा सभामुख सापकोटा विधिको कुरामा अड्किए ।

अब गरौं कानुनका कुरा
संवैधानिक परिषद्‍ (काम, कर्तव्य, अधिकार र कार्यविधि) २०६६ को दफा ६ मा परिषद्‍को बैठक सम्बन्धी कार्यविधिमा ७ वटा उपदफामा उल्‍खे गरिएको छ । जसअनुसार उपदफा २ मा लेखिएको छ ’अध्यक्षको निर्देशानुसार सचिवले परिषद्‍को बैठक बस्‍ने मिति, समय र स्थान तथा छलफलको विषय सूचीसहितको सूचना बैठक बस्‍नुभन्दा कम्तीमा ४८ घण्टा अगावै परिषद्‍का सदस्‍यहरुलाई पठाउनुपर्ने हुन्छ ।’ तर ओलीले बोलाएको बैठकमा त्यो लागू हुन सकेन । सभामुख सापकोटाका सचिवालयका अनुसार प्रधानमन्त्री कार्यालयले अझै सूची पठाएको छैन् । जसकारण सभामुख सापकोटा ओलीले बोलाएको बैठकमा सहभागी भएनन् । त्यही निहुँ पारेर ओलीले अध्यादेश ल्याए । उनले साँझ पाँच बजे बैठक पनि राखे ।

सबै सदस्यहरूको अनुकुल हेरेर संवैधानिक परिषद्‍को बैठक बोलाउनुपर्ने संविधानविद्‍ डा. विपिन अधिकारी बताउँछन् । निर्णयका प्रक्रिया पुगेर मात्रै बैठक बस्‍नुपर्ने उनको भनाइ छ । ‘बिहानको बैठक साँझ बोलाउन नपाइने भन्‍ने छैन’ अधिकारीले भने तर विधि र प्रकिया पुगेर मात्रै बैठक बस्‍नुपर्छ । तत्कालै खल्‍लीबाट उम्‍मेद्‍वारको सूची झिकेर कुरा गर्नेभन्‍दा पनि पर्याप्त छलफल गरेर मात्रै उम्‍मेद्‍वार टुग्याउनुपर्छ ।’ ४८ घण्टाअघि विषय सूची नदिए सभामुखले हेर्न पाउनुपर्ने अधिकारी बताउँछन् । कार्यविधि मिचेर अगाडी बढ्‍न नमिल्‍ने अधिकारीको धारणा छ ।

पार्टी फुटाउन खोजेको दाहाल-नेपाल समूहको निष्कर्ष
दाहाल-नेपाल समूहले ओलीले पार्टी फुटाउन खोजेको निष्कर्ष निकालेका छन् । ‘ओलीले पार्टी फुटाउने हर्कत गरिरहेको र त्यसकै आधार अहिले पुष्टि भएको छ’ दाहाल निकट एक नेताले इकागजसँग भने ‘पहिलेदेखि नै पार्टी फुटाएर भए पनि कुर्सीमा बसिरहने हर्कत गर्दै आएको र त्यसको यो नमुना मात्र रहेको भन्दै पार्टीले यसमा गम्भिर भएर छलफल गर्दै कठोर निर्णय लिने दाहालले अध्यादेश जारीपछि आफ्‍ना नेताहरुसँग बताएका थिए ।

त्यसोत दाहालले इकागजसँग भनेका थिए ‘सबै पार्टीले संसद्‍को अधिवेशन बोलाउन माग गरिरहेका बेला अध्यादेश ल्याउनु लोकतन्त्रको उपहास हो । उनले यो बदनियतपूर्ण छ र तरुन्त खारेज हुनुपर्ने माग गरेका थिए । दाहालले परिषद्सम्बन्धी अध्यादेश तुरुन्त खारेज गर्न प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई दूतहरुमार्फत सन्देशसमेत पठाएका छन् । यद्यपि दाहाल र प्रधानमन्त्री ओली बीच यसमा कुनै पनि छलफल भएको छैन ।

‘बैठकमै नआउने भन्‍ने हुन्छ र’
सभामुख संवैधानिक परिषद्‍को बैठकमा संविधानतः सभामुख जानुपर्ने हो कि होइन भन्‍ने कुरा उहाँले बुझ्नुपर्ने हो’ प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीका प्रेस सल्लाहकार सूर्य थापा प्रश्‍न गरेका थिए, ‘उहाँ पार्टीको मान्छे त हो तर सभामुख भएपछि सबैको साझा हो भन्‍ने कुरा ख्याल गर्नुपर्छ कि पर्दैन ?’ बैठकमा आएर सभामुखले आफ्‍नो कुरा राख्‍नुपर्ने थापाको जोड छ ।’ बैठक बोलाएपछि सहभागी भएर प्रधानमन्त्रीको कुरालाई असहमति राखेर जान पनि सक्‍नुहुन्थ्यो’ उनले भने ’बैठकमै नआउनु त उचित भएन नि ।’

नेकपाका प्रवक्ता तथा सचिवालय सदस्य नारायणकाजी श्रेष्ठले पनि यो विधि र प्रक्रिया मिलाइएको छैन । सबै प्रक्रिया अवरुद्ध गरेर भएका बैठकमा न्यायालयदेखि अन्य पक्षले पनि ध्यान पुर्‍याउन पर्ने देखिन्छ ।

काठमाडौं । लगातार दुईपटक संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठक ‘बहिष्कार’ गरेपछि सभामुख अग्निप्रसाद सापकोटाको संवैधानिक भूमिकामाथि विज्ञहरुले प्रश्न उठाएका छन् । प्रधानमन्त्रीले सरसल्लाह नगरी बैठक राखेको भन्दै सापकोटा संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठकमा गएका छैनन् ।

यसअघि प्रमुख विपक्षी दलका नेता शेरबहादुर देउवा अनुपस्थित हुँदा दश महिनादेखि संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठक बस्न सकेको थिएन । देउवाले लगातार बहिष्कार गरेपछि गत वैशाखमा सरकारले अध्यादेशमार्फत संवैधानिक परिषद्को बैठकसम्बन्धी कानून नै संशोधन गर्न खोजेको थियो ।

कानूनअनुसार ६ सदस्यीय संवैधानिक परिषदमा प्रधानमन्त्रीबाहेक चार सदस्य उपस्थित भएमात्र कोरम पुग्ने व्यवस्था छ । परिषदमा प्रधानमन्त्री अध्यक्ष र प्रधानन्यायाधीश, सभामुख, राष्ट्रिय सभाका अध्यक्ष, विपक्षी दलका नेता र उपसभामुख सदस्य रहने संवैधानिक व्यवस्था छ ।

उपसभामुख पद रिक्त रहेको अवस्थामा हाल कायम रहेका सबै सदस्य उपस्थित भएमात्र बैठक बस्न सक्छ । १० महिनादेखि देउवाका कारण बन्धक बनेको संवैधानिक परिषद अब सभामुखका कारण बन्धक बन्न पुगेको छ । नेकपा विवादको छायाँ परिषदमा पर्नु नै दुःखद रहेको पूर्व सभामुख दमननाथ ढुंगाना बताउँछन् ।

नेपाल प्रेससँग कुरा गर्दै ढुंगानाले भने– प्रचण्डजीले प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई अप्ठेरो पारेर निर्णय लिन असहयोग गर्न खोजेको हो । सभामुखको स्वतन्त्र निर्णय भन्दा पनि यसमा प्रचण्डजी जोडिनुहुन्छ । पार्टीको वा कुनै नेताको निर्देशन मान्नुभएको हो भने त्यो गलत हो । उहाँ जानुपर्थ्याे बैठकमा ।

मंगलबार बिहान परिषद्को अनौपचारिक बैठकमा पनि सभामुखको संवैधानिक दायित्व र पदीय आचरणका बारेमा चर्चा भएको थियो । सभामुख निर्वाचित भइसकेपछि स्वतन्त्र भूमिकामा रहने भनेर पार्टीबाट समेत राजीनामा दिएको व्यक्तिले नेकपा विवादमा एउटाको पक्ष लिएर संवैधानिक दायित्व उल्लंघन गरेको आरोप सरकारको छ ।

एक मन्त्रीले भने– विपक्षी दलको नेताले असहयोग गर्नु स्वाभाविक हो तर सभामुख नेकपाको कुनै एक नेताको निर्देशन मानेर बैठक नै बहिष्कार गर्ने ठाउँमा पुग्नु उहाँको संवैधानिक भूमिका विपरीत भयो ।

मंगलबारको मन्त्रिपरिषद् बैठकपछि नेपाल प्रेससँग कुरा गर्दै एक मन्त्रीले भने– विपक्षी दलको नेताले असहयोग गर्नु स्वाभाविक हो तर सभामुख नेकपाको कुनै एक नेताको निर्देशन मानेर बैठक नै बहिष्कार गर्ने ठाउँमा पुग्नु उहाँको संवैधानिक भूमिका विपरीत भयो । उहाँले बैठकमै गएर आफ्नो असहमति राख्नुपर्थ्याे ।

सभामुख स्वतन्त्र भूमिकामा रहने भएकाले पार्टीलाई वा कुनै नेतालाई सोधेर जिम्मेवारी पूरा नहुने संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी बताउँछन् । सभामुखले संवैधानिक दायित्वभित्र रहेर बैठकमै आफ्ना विमतिहरु राख्नुपर्ने भन्दै उनले बैठक बहिष्कार गर्नु पदीय आचरण विपरीत हुने बताए ।

नेकपा विभाजनको सँघारमा पुगेका बेला प्रचण्ड पक्षले सभामुखलाई संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठकमा जानबाट रोकेर प्रधानमन्त्रीमाथि दबाब बढाएको ढुंगानाले बताए । तर सभामुखको भूमिका निर्देशित भन्दा पनि स्वतन्त्र र संवैधानिक हुनुपर्ने उनको भनाइ छ ।

सभामुखनिकट स्रोतले भने संवैधानिक परिषद् बैठकमा प्रधानमन्त्रीले देउवासँग भागबण्डा गरेर एकलौटी निर्णय गर्न लागेकाले बैठकमा जानकारी दिएरै नगएको जनाएको छ । ४८ घण्टाअघि नियुक्तिका लागि सिफारिश गरिने व्यक्तिको सूची उपलब्ध गराउनुपर्नेमा सभामुखलाई नदिइएको सचिवालयका एक सदस्यले बताए ।

नेकपा सचिवालयले यसअघि नै संवैधानिकलगायत महत्वपूर्ण नियुक्तिहरु गर्दा प्रधानमन्त्रीले पार्टीमा छलफल गर्नुपर्ने भने पनि देउवासँग मिलेर पार्टीलाई जानकारी नदिई आफूनिकट व्यक्तिहरु नियुक्त गर्न लागेको प्रचण्ड माधव नेपाल पक्षको आरोप छ ।

देउवा बैठकमा सहभागी हुने भएपछि प्रचण्ड पक्षकै आग्रहमा सभामुख अनुपस्थित भएका हुन् । सभामुख सहभागी नभएपछि बैठक बस्न नसक्ने र प्रधानमन्त्रीले आफूखुसी नियुक्ति गर्न नपाउने भएरै सभामुखलाई प्रचण्डले निर्णायक बेलामा आफ्नो अनुकूल प्रयोग गरेको नेताहरु बताउँछन् ।

तर विज्ञहरुले भने यो गलत अभ्यास भएको र यसले संवैधानिक दायित्व र संविधानको कार्यान्वयन नै असफल हुने बताएका छन् ।

यसमा प्रचण्डजी जोडिनुहुन्छः दमननाथ ढुंगाना,पूर्व सभामुख

सभामुख भन्ने पद स्वतन्त्र भूमिकाको हो । पार्टीलाई सोधेर वा नेतालाई सोधेर जिम्मेवारी पूरा गर्ने होइन । अहिले सभामुखजी किन बैठकमा जानुभएन भन्दा नेकपाको विवादको झिल्को त्यहाँ पुग्यो । तर यो ठीक अभ्यास भएन ।

संविधान संवैधानिक परिषद्को सदस्य भनेको ठूलो जिम्मेवारी हो । स्वतन्त्र भूमिकामा हुने सभामुख विवादमा पर्नुहुँदैन । खासमा संवैधानिक परिषदमा सभामुखको कुनै राजनीतिक भूमिका हुन्न ।

नेकपामा एकले अर्कोलाई कमजोर पार्न पोजिशन लिएको बेला प्रचण्डजीले प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई अफ्ठेरो पारेर निर्णयलाई असहयोग गरेको हो । सभामुखको स्वतन्त्र निर्णय भने पनि यसमा प्रचण्डजी जोडिनुहुन्छ ।

निर्वाचनबाट बनेको संवैधानिक परिषदले काम गर्न सकेन अर्थात् संविधानले काम गर्न सकेन । यो त संवैधानिक दुर्घटना हो । यस्तो सुविधाजनक बहुमत भएको सरकारले पनि संवैधानिक परिषद्बाट निर्णय गर्न सकेन भने राम्रो हुन्न ।

दश महिनादेखि बैठक भएको छैन । संवैधानिक अंग भनेको संविधानलाई गति दिने इन्द्रिय हो । यो गम्भीरतापूर्वक संवैधानिक परिषद्का सदस्यहरुले पनि सोच्नुपर्ने विषय हो ।

संवैधानिक परिषद सभामुखले बहिष्कार नगरेको भए हुन्थ्यो । उहाँले व्यक्ति विशेष र पार्टीको निर्देशन मान्नुभएको हो भने गलत हो । म भन्छु, सभामुख बैठकमा जानुपर्थ्याे ।

विमति भए बैठकमा गएर राख्नुपर्छः विपिन अधिकारी, संविधानविद्

संवैधानिक परिषद भनेको देशका सबैभन्दा उच्च पदस्थ मान्छेहरु रहने महत्वपूर्ण राष्ट्रिय दायित्व बोकेको निकाय हो । देशका तीनै अंगका प्रमुख व्यक्तिहरु रहेको, एक प्रकारले भन्ने हो भने विशिष्ट व्यक्तिहरु रहेर मुलुकको लागि निर्णय गर्नुपर्ने ठाउँ हो ।

संवैधानिक परिषद्मा राजनीतिक दलको वा गुटको छायाँ देखिनु निकै गम्भीर विषय हो । सभामुख बैठकमा किन जानुभएन त्यो लगभग खुला छ । नेकपाको विवादमा उहाँ प्रयोग हुनुभयो । तर उहाँको अनुपस्थितिले उहाँको संवैधानिक दायित्वमाथि प्रश्न उठाएको छ ।

सभामुख भनेको स्वतन्त्र पद हो । एउटा प्रक्रियाबाट बैठक बस्ने जानकारी भइसकेपछि बहिष्कार गर्ने कुरा पदीय दायित्वभित्र हुन्न । कार्यविधिअनुसार संवैधानिक पदमा नियुक्ति सिफारिश हुने व्यक्तिको योग्यता, क्षमता र सूची उपलब्ध गराउनुपर्छ ।

ती नाममा वा योग्यतामा उहाँको विमति हो भने पनि बैठकमा उपस्थित भएर आफ्नो कुरा राख्नु संवैधानिक दायित्व हो । बैठकनै बस्न नदिने, संवैधानिक अंगहरुलाई वर्षौसम्म खाली राख्ने र निर्देशित भूमिकामा रहने कुराले पद अनुसारको योग्यता देखाउँदैन ।