Category: Quotes

KATHMANDU: Frequent dissolutions of the House of Representatives (HoR) and the toppling of a majority-government suggested the need of a thorough review of the course of the enforcement of Constitution, according to the experts.

Former Chief Justice (CJ) Kalyan Shrestha has said time demanded the need of review in the implementation of Constitution for its sustainability and for the protection of federalism.

“We have encountered with numerous issues during the implementation of Constitution and time has come to identity and address such loopholes.” He spoke the need of making an overall review of the course of the implementation of the Constitution so far to ensure free and impartial election and prevent the possible ‘commercialization’ of democracy.

The former Chief Justice warned of grave consequences ahead if the country’s main law was not amended and revived as per the people’s expectations on time.

Joining the same forum, another former CJ Sushila Karki argued that the proportional electoral system was being widely misused by those leaders of political parties having a greater role for bringing democracy in the country and provisions of selection should be revised.

Supreme Court Judge Prakash Man Singh Raut said even issues which could be settled outside the court were being taken to the court and questions arose over decisions of executive, legislature and judiciary due to this trend. “The country demands judicial restraint among the Constitutional bodies.”

Also speaking at the program, CPN-Maoist Center leader Barshaman Pun was of the view that though there were doubts and questions during the promulgation of the Constitution, the progress in the implementation of federalism proved that the constitutional roadmap was appropriate.

Pun, however, echoed the need of a review in regard to the enforcement of the Constitution in a positive way.

National Assembly (NA) member Radheshyam Adhikari was of the opinion that despite debates in some particular issues, the Constitution proved to be a consensus document in terms of democracy, federalism, democracy and inclusion. However, the amendment will make the document long-lasting. Now, it has been capable to be reviewed to further consolidate the presence of the parliament.

Constitutional expert Dr. Bipin Adhikari underlined the need of institutionalizing practices and exercises made in course of addressing questions raised over the issues of inclusion, periodic election, transformation and accountability.

Executive Director of Nepal Law Society Krishnaman Pradhan and Shilu Manandhar Bajracharya were of the view that latest SC verdicts had passed energy for the protection of the Constitution, promotion of rule of law and stability of democracy.

The speakers were putting their views at a program organized by the Nepal Law Society and Constitution Watch Group here Sunday on the occasion of the Constitution Day. RSS

जन्मिदैदेखि यो संविधानले आन्तरिक र बाह्य आघात सहनु पर्‍यो । देशभित्रका परम्परावादी शक्तिहरूले यो संविधानलाई चाहेका थिएनन्, हुँदाहुँदा अहिले त जन्मदाताहरूद्वारा नै यसमाथि प्रहार हुँदैछ ।

काठमाडौँ — संविधान घोषणा भएको ६ वर्ष बित्यो । घोषणाकै बखत यो संविधानले आन्तरिक र बाह्य घात/प्रतिघात सहनुपर्‍यो । बाह्य दबाबको पर्वाह नगरी तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री सुशील कोइरालाले एमाले र माओवादीहरूलाई साथमा लिएर अघि बढेकाले संविधानसभाबाट संविधान घोषणा गर्ने सफलता मिलेको उल्लेख गर्दै संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी भन्छन्, ‘सुशील कोइरालाजस्तो चरित्रवान व्यक्ति प्रधानमन्त्री नभएको भए संविधान घोषणा हुन मुस्किल थियो ।’

त्यसबेला संविधान घोषणा रोक्न भारतले खुलमखुल्ला दबाब दिएको थियो ।

संविधानविद् अधिकारीकाअनुसार घोषणाका बेला विरोध गर्नेहरू अहिले जोगाउनु पर्छ भन्दैछन् तर घोषणा गर्नेहरूचाहिँ संविधानका प्रावधानहरूको हुर्मत लिन उद्यत देखिएका छन् । मुलुकको विविधतायुक्त विशेषतालाई समेटेर समतामूलक समाज निर्माण गर्ने संविधानमा संकल्प गरिएको छ ।

आम नेपालीले सहज ढंगबाट स्वास्थ्य, शिक्षा, आवास, विनाहातहतियार हिँडडुल गर्ने, लेख्ने, पढ्ने, बोल्ने, कानुनी उपचार खोज्ने, रोजगारी पाउने लगायतका मौलिक हकहरू यो संविधानको अर्को महत्त्वपूर्ण पक्ष हो ।

३५ भाग र ३०८ धारा रहेको संविधानका विभिन्न धारा, उपधारामा नेपालीका उन्नति र हकहित कसरी संरक्षण गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने प्रावधानहरू राखिएका छन् । तर नेपालीको विडम्बना जतिसुकै राम्रो संविधान लेखे पनि पात्रहरूले संविधानको पालना नगरिदिँदा सात दशकमा सातवटै संविधान काम नलाग्ने भए ।

यो संविधानले राज्यको परम्परावादी चरित्र बदलिदिएको छ । राजनीतिक, आर्थिक र सामाजिक रूपमा देशका विभिन्न भूगोल, जातजाति र धर्म सम्प्रदायलाई एकताबद्ध गरी अघि बढ्न मार्गनिर्देश गर्ने मुलुकको मूल दस्तावेज हो यो ।

२०६२/६३ सालको जनआन्दोलनमा सडकमा उत्रिएका जनताको चाहनाअनुसार संविधानसभाको गठन गरियो । नेतृत्वको कमजोरीका कारण पहिलो संविधानसभा संविधान नै नलेखी विघटन हुनपुग्यो । त्यसपछि फेरि दोस्रो संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन भयो । र, निकै तनावका बीच त्यसले लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र नेपालको संविधान लेख्यो । र, राष्ट्रपतिले २०७२ असोज ३ गते संविधान घोषणा गरे ।

तर संविधानमाथि विभिन्न कोणबाट प्रहार भइरहेको छ । यो संविधानलाई नरूचाउने परम्परावादी शक्तिहरूले त यसै पनि यसलाई च्यात्न चाहने नै भए । हुँदाहुँदा यसलाई जन्माउनेहरूबाटै अहिले संविधानमाथि आघात परेको छ । एकपछि अर्को आक्रमण भइरहेको उल्लेख गर्दै संविधानविद् भीमार्जुन आचार्य भन्छन्, ‘संविधानमाथिको अहिलेको आघात असामान्य हो । जसले संविधान लेखे, घोषणा गरे र संरक्षण गर्छौँ भनेर कसम खाए आज तिनैबाट संविधानमा आघात परिरहेको छ । सत्तारूढ दलभित्रको झगडाका कारण दुईदुई पटक प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन यसको ज्वलन्त उदाहरण हो ।’

संविधानमा संघीय संरचनाअन्तर्गत तीन तहका सरकार–संघीय, प्रादेशिक र स्थानीय तहमा शक्तिको बाँडफाँड गरिएको छ । तर फेरि बाबुराम भट्टराईहरू यसको संरचना बदल्नु पर्छ भन्दैछन् । कोही संविधानमा संसदीयको सट्टा राष्ट्रपतीय शासन पद्धति उल्लेख गर्नुपर्छ भन्न थालेका छन् । कोही धर्मनिरपेक्षता हुनुहुन्न भन्दैछन् । संविधान पक्षधरहरू जसले यसको अपनत्व लिएर संरक्षण गर्नुपर्ने हो तिनकै संविधानप्रति यस्तो व्यवहारले गणतान्त्रिक संविधान कमजोर बन्दैछ । कांग्रेस, एमाले र राजाले २०४७ सालको संविधान कसरी मिल्काए ? के २०७२ सालको गणतान्त्रिक संविधानलाई पनि यसका सरोकारवाला पक्षहरूले यसै गर्न खोजेका हुन् ? प्रश्न उठ्न थालेको छ । संविधानविद् आचार्य भन्छन्, ‘जसले यो संविधान ल्याए यसको संरक्षण गर्ने दायित्व पनि तिनकै हो । तर तिनै सरोकारवालाहरूले संविधानलाई बेवारिसे बनाउन थाले । अपनत्व लिएको देखिँदैन ।’

संविधान घोषणा भएको ६ वर्षमै यसमाथि गम्भीर खालका घातहरू भएका छन् । संविधानमाथि आन्तरिक र बाह्य दुवै खालका आघात भएको छ । नेपालमा संवैधानिक स्थिरता देख्न नचाहने बाह्य शक्ति यो संविधानलाई फाल्न चाहिरहेका छन् । उता समावेशी संविधान नचाहने देशभित्रकै परम्परावादी शक्तिहरू पनि यही मौका पारेर प्रहार गर्दैछन् । संघीय संरचनाअनुसार निर्वाचित जनप्रतिनिधिहरूले काम गर्न नसक्दा र भ्रष्टाचार बढ्दा त्यसैलाई देखाएर संघीयताभन्दा देश ठूलो हो भन्नेहरू जनतामा व्याप्त निराशालाई ‘क्यास’ गर्न उद्यत् देखिन्छन् । यस्तो बेला संविधानका सरोकारवाला पक्षहरू नै संविधान विरोधी गतिविधिमा संलग्न भएका छन् । संविधानका सरोकारवाला र संविधान चाहँदै नचाहने दुवैथरी देशी तथा विदेशी शक्तिहरूको कोपभाजनमा पर्दैछ, संघीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र नेपालको संविधान ।

भूकम्पको धक्कासँगै संविधान आयो । तीनै तहको चुनाव भयो । जनतामा अब त केही हुन्छ कि भन्ने आस पलाउनु स्वाभाविकै थियो । फेरि विश्वव्यापी कोरोना महामारीको चपेटमा गुज्रनु पर्‍यो । त्यसमा पनि जनताले सहे, धैर्य गरे । तर राजनीतिक दलका नेताहरूको अकर्मण्यता र असहिष्णुता देखियो । व्यक्तिगत हित, अहितका लागि संविधान र व्यवस्थामाथि नै आक्रमण गर्न अग्रसर भए । यसले जनतामा झनै निराशा बढाएको छ । त्यसैले यो विषम परिस्थितिमा अब कसरी सच्चिएर अघि बढ्ने ? चुनौती थपिएको छ । संविधानविद् आचार्यका अनुसार यो संविधानको निर्माता पनि राजनीतिक दलहरू नै हुन् र बचाउने पहिलो दायित्व पनि तिनकै हो । त्यसका लागि नेतादेखि कार्यकर्ता र आम सर्वसाधारण सबैले संविधान, कानुनअनुसार चल्नु पर्छ । संविधानको प्रतिरक्षाको जिम्मेवारी दलहरूले लिनुपर्छ ।

Those who promulgated the charter have remained non-committal on its implementation and those who once objected to it lack the heft to push for amendments.

Nepal’s political parties remember the constitution once a year—on the anniversary of its promulgation. They will do so on Sunday, as the constitution turns six. Concerns still remain over the wider acceptability of the charter adopted in 2015.

Observers say Nepal’s major political parties rushed the constitution despite knowledge that various sections of the society were opposed to it. Over the years, the political parties that pushed the constitution through the Constituent Assembly have shown minimal commitment to safeguarding it. Parties, many say, instead have used the constitution as a bargaining tool.

Tula Narayan Shah, a political commentator who follows Madhes and national politics closely, said Madhes-based parties were opposed to the constitution from the very beginning, but those parties who pushed for its adoption too seem to have lost faith in it.

Loktantrik Samajbadi Party led by Mahantha Thakur has already announced that it would continue to observe the constitution anniversary as a “black day”.

The Janata Samajbadi Party, yet another political force with its base in Madhes, has not announced any protest programme, but it has said it won’t participate in any celebrations to mark the Constitution Day. Leaders of these two political parties were the ones who objected to the constitution when it was promulgated in 2015. The Janata Samajbadi is organising an interaction on Sunday to discuss the need for constitutional amendments.

Tharu and other indigenous communities have been saying that the agreements forged with successive governments to incorporate their concerns in the constitution remain unaddressed.

Observers say the onus to ensure wider acceptability of the constitution lies on those who pushed for it—the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), as they had banded together to adopt the charter even as protests grew along the plains.

The adoption of the constitution on September 20, 2015 clearly left the country divided. While celebrations erupted in Kathmandu and other parts of the country, mostly hills, most of the Tarai mourned what they called further marginalisation of the already marginalised communities.

Shah, however, says the Madhes-based parties’ sincerity towards constitutional amendments has already come into question.

“The worry is that over the past six years, rather than becoming stronger, the fragility of the constitution has increased,” said Sah. “When the principal actors responsible for implementing the constitution competed to flout it for their petty interests, this was bound to happen.”

The first elections under the constitution in 2017 installed UML’s KP Sharma Oli as prime minister. It was Oli who had played a key role in cobbling together a coalition to push for the constitution. His government was mandated to strengthen federalism and implement the charter. However, Oli left no stone unturned in trampling upon the constitution.

The Congress and the Maoist Centre which took umbrage at Oli’s actions against the constitution managed to return to power in July this year. The current government led by Congress’ Sher Bahadur Deuba, however, has little time to invest in the constitution’s implementation.

Experts on constitutional matters say the tendency among the parties to undermine constitutional provisions for power has led many to wonder who actually are the defenders of the country’s top law.

“It is unfortunate that we are in a situation where questions have arisen over the commitment of those to the constitution, who played a key role in its constitution,” said Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at the Kathmandu University School of Law.

Adhikari, the editor of the book “A Treatise on the Constitution of Nepal 2015”,

says it is quite disappointing that the parties that rose to power criticising Oli’s moves as unconstitutional and undemocratic are now failing to stick to constitutionalism and democratic principles.

The Madhes-based parties that had vehemently opposed the constitution in 2015 were quick to join the Oli government in 2018. They argued that they agreed to support the Oli government hoping that their constitutional amendment demands would be addressed.

However, they quit the government after the Oli government showed no signs of amending the constitution.

In May this year, the Mahantha Thakur faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party decided to support Oli, saying the government “is ready to address their demands”. But the Oli government fell in July after a court order. Thakur has now formed the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party.

The Upendra Yadav-led Janata Samjbadi Party is Deuba’s coalition partner. It is waiting to get hold of some ministerial berths rather than making a push for constitutional amendments.

Now after Deuba’s return to power, backed by the Maoist Centre, the House of Representatives has, by and large, remained dysfunctional—so much so that it could not even get the budget through Parliament, resulting in a government shutdown.

As many as 55 bills, many of them necessary for the implementation of federalism, are pending in the federal parliament. Some of the bills have been left unapproved since the first session of the federal parliament that commenced in March 2018. The delay in passing the laws has hampered effective functioning of federalism, which is one of the core pillars of the constitution.

According to Adhikari, effective implementation of the constitution is not possible unless democratic institutions, including Parliament, function effectively.

“Parliament has a constitutional role to hold the government to account but it has been dysfunctional,” said Adhikari.

In the lead-up to Constitution Day this year, Nepal’s political parties, those currently in power, made themselves objects of ridicule. Amid controversy over the Millenium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact, an American programme under which Nepal is to receive $500 million in grants, the government, as per an understanding among the ruling parties, asked the Millenium Challenge Corporation if the agreement is “above Nepal’s constitution”. Many were quick to criticise the parties for undermining the constitution they promulgated six years ago.

Last week, Nepali Congress Vice President Bimalendra, Nidhi in an interview with Naya Patrika, said there is still displeasure that India hasn’t welcomed Nepal’s constitution and that Delhi should do so as the sixth anniversary was approaching.

Nidhi’s statement may be personal but among a large section of Nepal’s political leadership, there seems to be this feeling that India has not welcomed the constitution yet. New Delhi’s displeasure was apparent in 2015 when it said it had “noted” the promulgation of the constitution in Nepal. Subsequently, India imposed a border blockade.

Experts say an immediate neighbour welcoming the constitution is always good but statements by some leaders like the one by Nidhi are indicative of inferiority complex and their lack of faith in the constitution they themselves promulgated.

“Such things clearly reflect the immaturity of the government and its lack of understanding of its own constitution,” said Adhikari.

That the Constituent Assembly failed to give enough time to people to present their feedback is an established fact. The earthquakes in April and May, 2015 had created an urgency among the Nepali leaders to push the constitution, as it was in the making for seven years.

Observers say since the constitution was promulgated amid protests by some sections of the society, it was incumbent on major political forces to listen to the concerns of the aggrieved parties and make gradual attempts to address their demands. This was the only way to ensure wider acceptability of the constitution, according to them.

“The constitution was disputed from the very first day. Against their responsibility to work to strengthen and increase its acceptability, the major parties are busy weakening it,” Daman Nath Dhungana, a former Speaker and civil society member, told the Post. “The constitution has become more fragile over the last few years. The only way to strengthen it is its revision through consensus.”

Those involved in the constitution drafting process, however, say the constitution has become stronger and that its acceptability has increased.

Subas Nembang, who chaired the Constitution Assembly for both of its terms, said the unanimity seen while passing a constitution amendment bill to incorporate Nepal’s new political map showed every party has taken ownership of the constitution.

According to him, the parties that were objecting to the constitution had hit the streets in the name of protecting it, which also shows how they have embraced it.

“I firmly believe the acceptability of the constitution has increased,” Nembang told the Post. “However, if it needs revision to further broaden its acceptance, it can be done based on the need.”

An ordinance that the Nepali prime minister introduced recently to ease the splitting of parties is proving counterproductive.

Sher Bahadur Deuba, who became Nepal’s prime minister for the fifth time on July 13, inherited a government facing multiple problems, including rising COVID-19 infections, economic crisis, illiberal governance, and corruption. Instead of tackling these problems, Deuba has spent much of the last two months finding ways to divide other political parties.

On August 18, Deuba introduced an ordinance that allows any group that has the support of 20 percent of a party’s central committee or of its members in parliament to quit the mother party and register a new one.

In effect, the ordinance has lowered the threshold for splitting a party from 40 percent support in both the central committee and the parliamentary party to 20 percent support either in the central committee or the parliamentary party.

Thus, Deuba has made it easier for political parties to split and register new ones.

Several parties, including the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) and the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) have split following the passage of the ordinance.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Madhav Nepal, one of the oldest members of the CPN-UML registered a new party, the Communist Party of Nepal – Unified-Socialist (CPN-US), while Mahanta Thakur of the JSP has formed the Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (LSP). Former health minister Hridayesh Tripathi is also planning to form a new right-wing party.

But after splitting two parties, the ordinance has become “an albatross around his [Deuba’s] neck” as it is standing in the way of cabinet expansion. The JSP, a coalition partner, has said that it will not extend support to Deuba’s cabinet appointments if he does not repeal the controversial ordinance.

Additionally, Deuba is now worried that the ordinance will trigger a split within his own party. He is therefore reportedly anxious to withdraw the ordinance.

Besides, the Deuba government has failed to get its budget passed amid a political row with the CPN-UML over the switching of parties of 14 of its parliamentarians. All government spending has ceased since Wednesday.

Over a year ago, when Deuba’s predecessor Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli had tried to introduce a similar ordinance, he was widely criticized for encouraging instability by easing the splitting of parties. Now Deuba, is being criticized for being no different from Oli.

It is two months since Deuba took charge. His failure to expand his cabinet and to give his government full shape, especially at a time when the country is in the midst of a pandemic and its foreign policy is in disarray, has drawn criticism. It has exposed internal wrangling for ministerial posts and the fragility of his coalition government.

Post-ordinance, six national parties have emerged in Nepal’s political arena. If it is not removed now, the process of political realignment will continue, derailing all hope for political stability in the Himalayan country. Past experience shows that coalition governments do not function well in Nepal.

Months ago, the Supreme Court intervened to oust former prime minister Oli from power. This had paved the way for Deuba to become the new prime minister. It had ignited heated debate in Nepal.

Constitutional experts are now wondering whether the Deuba government’s recent ordinance will prompt another intervention from the apex court.

“The multiparty system is on the verge of collapse in Nepal. The Government has passed a very unconstitutional ordinance which will erode organizational discipline in all political parties,” Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional expert tweeted. The Supreme Court is under pressure again “to correct the course” the government has taken, he said.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

There are several issues that need the Deuba government’s immediate attention. There are border tensions with India; India still occupies Nepali-claimed territories and the prime minister is avoiding dealing with the matter. Traditionally, the Nepali Congress has had close ties with the Indian establishment.

The Nepali Congress has been mum on the alleged killing of Nepali national Jaya Singh Dhami by personnel of India’s Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). Apparently SSB officials cut the cable Dhami was using to cross the River Kali. Indian officials are denying any involvement in his death but local witnesses confirm the incident. Nepali nationals have suffered discrimination and abuse at the India-Nepal border from SSB officials.

Deuba is keen on taking forward projects of both China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). While this will enable Nepal’s balancing between the two powers, it could complicate implementation of projects. Nepali observers say that the Chinese will oppose implementation of projects under the MCC if Deuba selects non-strategic BRI projects only. Meanwhile, the U.S. is pushing Deuba to get the MCC pact ratified by parliament.

Instead of finding ways to deal with geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China or between India and China in a way that benefits Nepal, Deuba is busy shutting up those who criticize his handling of foreign policy issues.

Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs issued statements early this month warning those “making negative and threatening comments… targeting the development projects being carried out with support from a friendly country” with severe punishment under existing laws. It did not name the “friendly country,” but it is widely believed that the ministry was referring to the U.S. and projects under the MCC.

In another statement, the MHA threatened those “burning effigies, chanting slogans and staging demonstrations” against the “Prime Minister of a neighboring country” with legal action. This is aimed at those protesting against India’s role in Nepal.

Deuba’s shutting down criticism of his policies will not make the many problems that Nepal is grappling with go away. He needs to address these problems. They deserve his focused attention.

Prime Minister Deuba finds it difficult to keep his alliance intact as partners oppose US project

Fatema Z Sumar, vice president of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), parachuted into Kathmandu on Thursday amidst a firestorm of protest against the project that threatens to divide Nepal’s coalition government.

Together with her deputy Jonathan Brooks, Sumar over the next four days will be meeting Nepal’s top politicians who are for and against the $500 million grant project designed to upgrade Nepal’s electricity grid and highways.

The visit follows Sumar’s written response to concerns raised by Nepal’s Finance Ministry on 3 September regarding the grant.

The main objective of the MCC is a 315km transmission line between Hetauda-Damauli-Butwal, important for the distribution of the 3,000MW of electricity that will be added to Nepal’s national grid in the next three years.

The discourse surrounding the MCC has been influenced by geopolitical rivalries between India and China on the one hand and between the US and China on the other, with Nepal’s political parties weaponising the project to undermine each other.

Indeed, support for the MCC by K P Oli was one of the issues raised by the five-party alliance that led to his ouster in July, after which Deuba took over as prime minister.

Two months later, Deuba is yet to complete government formation, and support and opposition to the MCC is now threatening to undermine his governing alliance. The MCC is such a political hot potato that it was not even listed in the coalition’s common minimum program last month despite Prime Minister Deuba being for it.

However, critics including his main coalition partner Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoists and Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Communist Party of Nepal (United Socialist) view the project as part of America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, and superseding Nepal’s Constitution.

Sumar’s letter attempted to assuage both of these concerns, saying that the MCC is neither a part of America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, nor is it not above Nepal’s Constitution. However, the response added that the points previously agreed upon would not be subject to amendments, which did little to quell the growing protest, including street demonstrations.

The delegation led by Vice President Samar met with opposition leader K P Sharma Oli on Thursday afternoon to discuss the project, and is also set to meet with Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, Finance Minister Janardan Sharma and Energy Minister Pampha Bhusal (both Maoists).

The MCC compact has clauses requiring that it be ratified by Nepal’s Parliament, and that the project be completed five years after the work officially commences. Nepal had committed to ratifying the MCC in Parliament by September 2019, but the process has been deadlocked by the feud in the ruling Communist Party of Nepal while Oli was prime minister.

Lok Raj Baral, Nepal’s former ambassador to India, says that there has been unnecessary over-politicisation of the issue that has harmed Nepal’s international credibility.

“The opposition to the MCC seems to have been led by those in power who were also trying to stop the Arun III hydropower project,” says Baral. “That the opinions of individual leaders dominate the discourse over official party decisions speaks to the selfishness of Nepal’s political leadership.”

Former Prime Minister Oli backed the MCC after he took over from Deuba in 2017, but his main party rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal and dissidents from his own UML used provisions in the MCC that they saw as being anti-national against Oli.

Now, with Deuba being Prime Minister once again, the debate surrounding the MCC is likely to put a strain on his ruling coalition, made up of Dahal’s Maoist Centre and Madhav Kumar Nepal’s breakaway CPN (United Socialist) which are opposed to the project.

On the other hand, the Nepali Congress and another coalition partner Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) seem open to ratifying the agreement in Parliament, but they do not have enough numbers in the House for it to be successful. Deuba has been sending feelers to the opposition UML to see if it will back the ratification in Parliament.

For his part, Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been saying that the MCC is a conspiracy to break the ruling alliance. However, experts see Dahal’s position on the MCC as being inconsistent and opportunistic. He went along with the project, and then weaponised it during his power struggle with Oli.

“It should not come as a surprise to anyone if the ruling coalition collapses because of the MCC,” says political analyst Punaranjan Acharya, who adds that it is not Prime Minister’s Deuba’s intention to go against the agreement, but that of the “so-called” communist parties in Deuba’s alliance.

“The prime minister has tried to be transparent regarding the matter,” says Acharya. “The problem is with the double-dealing leaders of the coalition partners.”

Former speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who resigned from his position in 2019 following allegations of rape, said last year in a statement that he had been falsely accused for opposing the MCC. His successor Agni Prasad Sapkota has also blocked the MCC Compact for discussion on the House floor.

Rastriya Janamorcha Party Chairman Chitra Bahadur KC, who is a member of Deuba’s coalition, says that the MCC will not be allowed to reach Parliament, and will not be ratified in the event it is presented before the House.

“We continue to oppose the MCC, which is not even included in the coalition’s Common Minimum Program,” says KC.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says it would be ironic if the MCC is not allowed to be presented before the people’s representatives in the House because of the political self-interest of the Speaker and other powerful political leaders.

Other analysts insist that the political process surrounding the MCC should be moved forward in a way that the project is ratified in the House without breaking the coalition and without the party whip being applied.

While issuing an interim order on Thursday with regards to the hearing by the Constitutional Bench on appointments to various constitutional bodies, Justice Hari Phuyal made an observation on public discourse on sub judice cases.

“There is a need to decide whether people from various walks of life and institutions should be allowed to make public their opinions and even official decisions regarding the cases that are being heard by the Supreme Court,” the bench observed.

The bench said the court should look into remarks by former chief justices and justices, formal decisions by Nepal Bar Association and the public debates by lawyers on sub judice cases and decide whether they are within the parameters of freedom of expression and judicial culture.

The observation was with regards to growing debate on whether Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana should lead the Constitutional Bench as it hears the petitions against the appointments to various constitutional bodies.

After questions were raised that Rana’s presence on the bench would constitute a conflict of interest, Rana had decided to allow the senior-most Justice Deepak Kumar Karki to lead the bench. The hearing was scheduled for Friday. But Justice Phuyal’s bench issued an interim order on Thursday, throwing the hearing into limbo.

As per the constitution, Rana, as the chief justice, should lead the Constitutional Bench. But since Rana, as the chief justice, is also a member of the Constitutional Council that recommends appointments to various constitutional bodies, lawyers say there was a clear conflict of interest.

As many as 52 appointments were made by the Constitutional Council after the erstwhile KP Sharma Oli government introduced an ordinance to amend the Constitutional Council Act.

Now with Justice Phuyal’s observation on public debate on sub judice cases, questions are being raised if the judiciary is attempting to gag the freedom of expression.

Senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi has already moved the court with a petition demanding vacating of the ruling by Phuyal’s bench. The petition is in the process of registration.

“Controlling public opinion is against the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution as a fundamental right,” said Tripathi.

Article 17 (2) (a) of the constitution ensures the freedom of opinion and expression.

“Barring opinion is not just an attack on freedom of expression but also against international norms and practices,” Tripathi told the Post.

In his petition, Tripathi has cited the “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers” which says judges and prosecutors, just like all citizens, can exercise their right to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly which has to be done in a way that doesn’t violate the dignity of their office.

When the erstwhile prime minister Oli first dissolved the House of Representatives on December 20, four former chief justices on January 8 had issued a joint statement, calling the move unconstitutional.

The House dissolution case was already at the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Bench was hearing the case. The former chief justices had stated that Oli had no authority to dissolve the House.

Nepal Bar Association too had said the dissolution contradicted constitutional provisions.

Political parties like Nepali Congress and Janata Samajbadi Party, as well as some sections of the then ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), had taken to the streets calling the House dissolution unconstitutional.

After Oli’s December 20 move, public opinion too was divided. There were some with the view that public debate on the House dissolution was a wrong idea, as the case was sub judice.

Lawyers defending Oli’s House dissolution move too had raised the issue of public debate on a matter that was being heard by the Constitutional Bench.

Chief Justice Rana, who was presiding over the bench, however, had said that justices aren’t influenced by debates that take place out of the court.

Democracy defenders and proponents of freedom of speech say the judiciary should refrain from putting restrictions on public opinion under the pretext of sub judice cases as that could be a regressive move.

“Barring public debate would be against the norms of freedom of expression and democratic principles the country has embraced,” Daman Nath Dhungana, a former Speaker and civil society member, told the Post. “The Supreme Court should refrain itself from making any decision that stifles freedom of opinion and expression.”

According to Dhungana, since the court is yet to make a final decision, it should be cautioned.

A ruling to stop public debate on cases, especially those related to government decisions that can have a lasting impact, could be detrimental to democracy, observers say.

Freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are basic tenets of Nepal’s democracy, and all the constitutions since 1990 have made them fundamental rights that make citizens adequately informed. Nepal’s constitution also explicitly envisions separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature.

Oli met with criticism from various walks of life because he intended to destabilise the principles of checks and balances.

Observers say if Nepal’s judiciary, which in recent times has faced charges of failing to discharge its duties in a fair manner, indeed wants to improve its image, it should work to clean the house, rather than pointing fingers at others, observers say. According to them, the judiciary’s job is to focus on the evidence and arguments presented by the petitioners and defendants, rather than snooping about to find out if there is any public debate or discourse happening on sub judice matters.

Some say drawing a fine line would be in the larger interest of everyone, as judicial independence is as important as freedom of speech and expression.

Bipin Adhikari, a former dean at Kathmandu University School of Law, says unprincipled comments and opinions against sub judice cases must be avoided and need to be restricted.

“However, restrictions on debates on sub judice cases shouldn’t stretch to the extent where it breaches the freedom of expression,” said Adhikari.

When it comes to relations with neighbours, a studied approach that is above partisan interests is required, and both Oli and Deuba have bungled, analysts say.

When it comes to Nepal’s foreign policy issues, what is missing is—the Nepal government.

Over the years Nepal has seen governments of one political party or another, and these governments function based on the orientation of the party that is leading. And when foreign policy matters are concerned, the Nepali state is confused.

The border issue with China is a case in point.

Last year in September, reports surfaced that the Chinese side had built 11 buildings in a remote part of Humla district that Nepal claims as its own territory.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to say that there were no disputes.

“The Department of Survey, based on official records, reports of the joint field inspection and boundary maps, has verified and confirmed that the said buildings are not located within the Nepali territory,” read the statement.

The government then was led by KP Sharma Oli, who now heads the CPN-UML.

Oli was replaced by Nepali Congress’ Sher Bahadur Deuba on July 13. Deuba is mainly backed by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), which until March this year was part of the Oli government.

On Wednesday, Deuba formed a five-member team to “study” the boundary dispute with China. The team is headed by a joint secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs. Neither the name of the joint secretary nor the terms of reference have been finalised yet.

One of the ministers in the Deuba government said the panel was formed at the initiative of Deuba.

“But it was set up without the required debate and discussions on the issue,” said the minister who did not wish to be named.

The Deuba Cabinet has just four ministers.

Experts say Nepal has historically failed to make a clear position on foreign policy matters, especially when it comes to the neighbours, as such matters usually depend on the party in power. While the Oli government made a bungle, the Deuba government has not done any good with regards to the boundary issue with China, according to them.

“Pradeep Gyawali, who was foreign minister [when the boundary row surfaced] should not have dismissed the issue in haste when an elected member raised the issue pertaining to Namkha Rural Municipality,” said Toyanath Baral, former director general at the Department of Survey. “The then government should have dispatched a technical team or made public the report prepared by the chief district officer of Humla.”

Jeevan Bahadur Shahi, a member of the Karnali Provincial Assembly, after a field trip, had prepared a report, saying Pillar Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 5 (1), 6 (1), 7 (1) and 8 (1) were damaged in Humla district, which borders China.

Shahi had also claimed that Pillar No. 12 was replaced by the Chinese side, as a result a large swathe of Nepali land had slipped into the Chinese side.

Shahi’s report, however, was not owned by the government.

The Home Ministry instead formed a team under Chirinjivi Giri, chief district officer of Humla, to look into the matter and prepare a report.

The report was never made public.

“We forwarded the report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” said a senior Home Ministry official familiar with the report. “We thought the Foreign Ministry would speak on the basis of that report, but it made a statement before the Giri-led team submitted it to the Home Ministry, which put everyone in a quandary.”

The official said he is not in a position to say whether the Deuba government has taken the report into consideration to form a new team.

Long before Giri submitted the report to the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on September 23, “The boundary between Nepal and China was delineated and demarcated based on the Boundary Treaty and Boundary Protocols signed between the two countries. Nepal and China have always maintained close communication on border matters.”

The Post’s repeated attempts to speak to Gyawali, who was foreign minister then, went unanswered.

After the formation of the Deuba government, the ruling alliance, in which the Maoist Centre, the Janata Samajbadi Party and the CPN (Unified Socialist) are coalition partners, unveiled its common minimum programme. The Kalapani dispute with India was included in the programme. Some Congress leaders were quick to point out why the China border issue was not the government’s priority.

Deuba then assured his party members that he would form a team to “study” the matter.

The Congress leaders’ insistence that the China border issue should be the government priority stemmed from the fact that the Chinese embassy in Kathmandu had written, on November 13, to the party over Shahi’s report which was doing rounds in the media. The Congress had taken it as an affront, saying the embassy had breached the protocol in sending the letter to the party.

Observers say the problem lies with Nepal’s political parties, as they have a tendency to take different approaches when it comes to India and China. While the Oli government’s hurried statement dismissing there was any border issue with China was wrong, it is equally wrong on the part of the Deuba government to form a committee “to study” the matter in haste, according to them.

The issue has become an irritant within the ruling alliance as well.

The Maoist Centre, Deuba’s key coalition partner, believes that the border dispute with China appears to be the Congress party’s agenda, rather than a national issue.

“This issue [of forming the team] has drawn our serious attention. This is a sensitive matter but the Nepali Congress is treating it as an internal party issue,” said Narayan Kaji Shrestha, a Maoist Centre leader and former foreign minister. “We are saying that we should have a common foreign policy. This [China border] issue is only on the Nepali Congress’ agenda, not on the agenda of the current alliance.”

When the issue had surfaced in September last year, the UML and the Maoist Centre were one party–the Nepal Communist Party (NCP)–after their merger in May 2018. Their merger was largely engineered by China, and both were considered to have a leaning towards the north, in such a way that none wanted to antagonise Beijing.

The Foreign Ministry’s hasty statement dismissing any border dispute with the north is believed to have been issued to not irritate China.

Now with the Deuba government raising the issue, questions have arisen if Nepal has a consistent foreign policy or it is guided by political parties’ narrow and myopic interests.

The Deuba government is already caught in diplomatic trouble. While it is under pressure to deal with India with regards to an incident in Darchula in which a youth fell into Mahakali while crossing the river using a cable crossing, it has entangled itself into the border dispute with China.

Observers say Deuba, who has been struggling to expand his Cabinet and ensure governance, is staring at yet another major diplomatic test. He is under pressure to ratify the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact, a United States programme under which Nepal will receive $500 million in grants, through Parliament. Here also, he is not sure his coalition partner, the Maoist Centre, would support him.

Fatema Z Sumar, vice president of the Department of Compact Operations at the Millennium Challenge Corporation, is set to arrive in Nepal on September 9 to discuss the MCC.

Observers say Deuba’s diplomatic dilemmas are immense. And at such a time, they say it was a premature move to form a team to “study” the border dispute with China, despite the fact the previous government had said there were no issues.

Bipin Adhikari, an expert on constitutional matters and a member of a government task team on boundary matters, said that Nepal should not conduct its foreign policy in a haphazard way and that it should take an objective approach while dealing with issues related to India and China.

“If there was indeed a need to form a committee, it should have been done through a studied decision. Such decisions should be taken based on need rather than whims,” said Adhikari. “The erstwhile government should not have dismissed the issue in the past. We have to maintain coherence in our foreign policy. Foreign policy should not be guided by partisan interests.”

According to Adhikari, a country’s foreign policy should not be devised based on which party is in power.

“The foreign policy should be of the state… not of the parties. It should be coherent, consistent and participatory,” said Adhikari.

A CPN-UML leader said the Deuba government’s decision to constitute a team is flawed.

“The Oli government had already dismissed any dispute in the region. Such a move will destabilise our relations,” said Bishnu Rijal, deputy chief of the UML’s foreign affairs department. “Any government, irrespective of which party is leading, should follow a balanced foreign policy.”

Experts on boundary issues say that it is natural for neighbouring countries to have an issue or two regarding their borders and that such issues should be dealt with and resolved amicably. According to them, since neighbours cannot be changed, it is in the larger interest of everyone to sit down and talk and find a lasting solution when such issues emerge.

“As per a protocol we have signed with China, if we find any dispute or encroachment, we can deal with it through a joint committee,” said Baral, the former director general at the Department of Survey and a member of the government team formed to study the Kalapani dispute. “We have a permanent mechanism to deal with boundary related issues with China. I had personally met with Gyawali and advised him to dispatch a technical team to Humla before making Nepal’s position public when the issue had surfaced in September last year.”

Nepal and China had prepared a digital boundary map in 2005-6 but it could not be signed due to dispute over the height of Mt Everest and one missing pillar in Rasuwa, according to Baral.

“Since 1989 we have not signed any boundary protocol with China,” said Baral. “It seems that the Deuba government made the decision in a hurry. I don’t know whether the current government even examined the archives and other details before forming the panel.”

नेकपा एमालेले आफ्नो दल परित्यागको तयारी गरेका १४ सांसदहरू निष्कासन गर्न पठाएको पत्रमा सभामुख अग्नि प्रसाद सापकोटाले १३ दिनसम्म पनि कुनै निर्णय लिएका छैनन्।

प्रमुख प्रतिपक्षी दल एमालेले सभामुखले पक्षधरता लिएको आरोप लगाएको छ भने उनको सचिवालयले त्यसको खण्डन गर्दै आएको छ।

एमालेले हटाउन पत्राचार गरेका सांसदले पार्टी विभाजन गरेर नयाँ दल दर्ता गरिसकेका छन्।

सभामुखले आफ्नो पार्टी विभाजनमा सहयोग पुर्‍याएको आरोप लगाउँदै आएका एमाले नेताहरूले सभामुखले आफ्ना सांसद नहटाएको विषयलाई लिएर संसद् सञ्चालनमा अवरोध गर्न सक्ने सङ्केत गरेका छन्।

साउन अन्तिममा अन्त्य भएको संसद् अधिवेशन पुन: सुरु हुने मिति तोकिएको छैन।

एमालेले निष्कासन गरेका नेता र सांसदहरूलाई समेत गणना गरेर नेकपा (एकीकृत समाजवादी) दल दर्ता गर्ने निर्वाचन आयोगको निर्णय विरुद्ध अदालत जाने निर्णय गरेको पार्टी कार्यालय सचिव शेरबहादुर तामाङले बताए।

उनले सभामुख सापकोटाले ती सांसदहरूलाई हटाउन ढिलाइ गरेको विषयमा पनि एमाले प्रतिरोधमा उत्रने बताए।

विवाद के हो
भदौ १ गते पूर्व प्रधानमन्त्री माधवकुमार नेपाल सहित १४ जना सांसदलाई निष्कासन गरिएको पत्र एमाले अध्यक्ष केपी ओलीले संसद् सचिवालयमा पठाएका थिए।

राजनीतिक दल सम्बन्धी ऐन अनुसार दलले निष्कासन गरेका सांसदको पद रिक्त हुन सभामुखले संसद् बैठकमा सूचना सुनाउने वा सचिवालयको पाटीमा सूचना टाँस गर्नुपर्छ।

यसअघि माओवादीले निष्कासन गरेका सांसदहरूको पद रिक्त भएको सूचना केही दिनभित्रै सुनाएका सभामुखले एमालेले हटाएका सांसदहरूको पद रिक्त भएको सूचना १२ दिन बितिसक्दा समेत प्रकाशन नगरेको भन्दै एमालेले आपत्ति जनाउँदै आएको छ।

एमालेबाट निष्कासनमा परेका सांसदहरूले निर्वाचन आयोगबाट बुधवारै नयाँ दल दर्ता गराइसकेका छन्।

राजनीतिक दल सम्बन्धी अध्यादेशको नयाँ व्यवस्था अनुसार पार्टी केन्द्रीय समितिको २० प्रतिशत बढी हस्ताक्षर आयोगमा बुझाएर सनाखत समेत गरिसकेका कारण एमालेबाट एकीकृत समाजवादीमा गएका सांसदहरूको पद खोस्न सकेन। एमालेले सांसदहरूलाई निष्कासन गर्ने निर्णयको जानकारी आयोगलाई पनि दिएको थियो।

आयोगले ती सांसदहरूको पद रहे नरहेको जानकारी माग गर्दा संसद् सचिवालयले विचाराधीन रहेको जवाफ फर्काएपछि आयोगले नयाँ दल दर्ता गर्‍यो।

सभामुखले एमालेको पत्रबारे तत्कालै कारबाही नगरेकै कारण ती सांसदहरूको पद जोगिएको एमालेको आरोप छ।

“एमालेले कारबाही गरेका सांसदहरूलाई सभामुखले बचाउने कुरा उहाँको विशेषाधिकार भित्र छैन,” एमाले नेता अग्नि खरेलले बीबीसीसँग भने।

सभामुखले तत्कालै निर्णय नलिएपछि एमाले सांसदहरूले सभामुख सापकोटालाई भेटेर छिटो सूचना निकाल्न दबाव समेत दिए। सभामुखलाई अनावश्यक दबाव दिइएको भन्दै सत्ताधारी गठबन्धन समर्थित दलहरूले विज्ञप्ति मार्फत आपत्तिसमेत जनाएका थिए।

सभामुख सापकोटाको सचिवालयका प्रेस विज्ञ श्रीधर न्यौपाने सभामुख सापकोटा एमालेको पत्रबारे कुनै निर्णयमा पुगिनसकेको बताउँछन्।

“पत्रबारे सभामुख अध्ययन र परामर्शमै हुनुहुन्थ्यो। यही बीचमा निर्वाचन आयोगबाट उहाँहरूको नयाँ दल दर्ता भइसकेको पत्र आएपछि नयाँ परिस्थितिमा कसरी अघि बढ्ने भनेर उहाँले परामर्श जारी राख्नुभएको छ,” न्यौपानेले भने।

सभामुखलाई थान्कोमा राख्न एमालेले जानेको छ: खरेल
नेकपा माओवादी केन्द्रबाट निर्वाचित भएका सभामुख सापकोटाले तटस्थता नदेखाएको पूर्व कानुन मन्त्रीसमेत रहेका एमाले नेता अग्नि खरेलको आरोप छ।

“माओवादी केन्द्रले कारबाही गरेका सांसदलाई उहाँले २४ घण्टा नबित्दै हटाउनुभयो। एमालेले कारबाही गरेका सांसद हटाउने बेला उहाँको दाँत दुख्यो। उहाँले न्याय निरूपण गर्ने होइन जाँचबुझ गर्न पनि मिल्दैन। उहाँले राजनीतिक पूर्वाग्रह बोक्नुभएको छ,” खरेलले भने।

एमाले सांसदहरू हटाउन अझै समय रहेको भन्दै उनले नहटाए सभामुखविरुद्ध एमाले कडा रूपमा प्रस्तुत हुने बताए।

“सभामुख थान्कोमा नबसे थान्कोमा कसरी बसाउनुपर्छ एमालेले जानेको छ। सभामुखलाई अनि कांग्रेस माओवादीका साथीहरूलाई यो सदन चलाउनु छ की छैन?”

सभामुखको विशेषाधिकार हुन्छ: पूर्व सभामुख ढुङ्गाना
सभामुखलाई संसद् सञ्चालन सम्बन्धी कतिपय विषयमा विशेषाधिकार हुने पूर्व सभामुख दमननाथ ढुङ्गाना बताउँछन्।

पार्टीबाट ठुलो सङ्ख्यामा सांसदहरू हटाउने एमालेको निर्णय विवादास्पद देखिएकाले उनीहरूलाई सभामुखले विशेषाधिकार प्रयोग गरेर नहटाउन पनि सक्ने ढुङ्गाना बताउँछन्।

“एक त उनीहरूले एमालेबाट अलग भइसकेर नयाँ दल समेत दर्ता गरिसकेको अवस्था छ। अब ती अलग दलका सांसद भइसके। अर्को कुरा दलले गरेका सबै सिफारिस सभामुखले स्वीकार गर्दै जाने कुरा हुँदैन सभामुखको पनि विशेषाधिकार हुन्छ,” ढुङ्गानाले भने।

सभामुखको विशेषाधिकार भित्र पर्दैन: अधिकारी
तर संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारीको धारणा फरक छ।

१४ सांसद हटाउन एमालेले देखाएको आधार विवादास्पद देखिएको भए पनि सभामुखलाई सांसदहरूमाथिको कारबाही रोक्ने अधिकार नभएको अधिकारी बताउँछन्।

“विशेषाधिकार हुनलाई संविधान वा कानुनले यो विषय विशेषाधिकार हो भनेर स्पष्ट गरेको हुनुपर्छ। यस्तो विषयमा त न परम्परा छ न सभामुखले आफ्नो विवेक प्रयोग गर्न सक्ने भनेर कतै भनिएको छ,” अधिकारीले भने।

उनका अनुसार सरकारको सिफारिस राष्ट्रपतिले कार्यान्वयन गरेजस्तै पार्टीले गरेको निर्णयमा सभामुखलाई जाँचबुझ वा तलमाथि गर्ने अधिकार कानुनले दिएको छैन।

“कारबाही गरिसकेपछि प्रश्न उठेको अवस्थामा बरु अदालतले छिनोफानो गर्न सक्छ,” अधिकारीको भनाइ छ।

संवैधानिक परिषद् र संवैधानिक इजलासमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश रहने व्यवस्था भएसम्म यस्तो विवाद भविष्यमा पनि आउने सम्भावना

इजलासमै टिप्पणी : नियुक्तिमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई पनि भाग लागेको छ

काठमाडौँ — तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओलीले गत वर्षको मंसिरमा अध्यादेश ल्याएर संवैधानिक निकायहरूमा गरेको नियुक्तिमाथि परेको रिटको सुनुवाइ नौ महिनापछि बल्ल सुरु भएको छ । प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्रशमशेर जबराको उपस्थितिमै प्रश्न उठेपछि उनी इजलासबाट अलग भएका छन् ।

तर, संवैधानिक परिषद् र संवैधानिक इजलासमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश हुने संवैधानिक व्यवस्था भएसम्म यस्तो विवाद भविष्यमा पनि आउने देखिएको छ ।

प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले पहिलो पटक प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन गर्नुअघि संवैधानिक परिषद्को बैठक बोलाएका थिए । तर, सभामुख र प्रमुख प्रतिपक्षी दलका नेता उपस्थित नभएपछि उनले अध्यादेशमार्फत कानुन नै परिवर्तन गराएका थिए । ६ सदस्यीय परिषद्मा सुरुमा कम्तीमा पाँच सदस्य उपस्थित भएपछि मात्रै निर्णय गर्न मिल्ने प्रावधानलाई संशोधन गर्दै ओलीले तीन सदस्य उपस्थित भए पनि निर्णय गर्न सकिने बनाएका थिए ।

बिहान अध्यादेश जारी गरेर बेलुका डाकिएको परिषद्को बैठकमा प्रधानमन्त्री ओली, प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा र राष्ट्रिय सभाका अध्यक्ष गणेशप्रसाद तिमिल्सिना मात्र उपस्थित थिए । उनीहरूले विभिन्न संवैधानिक निकायमा ३८ पदाधिकारी नियुक्तिको सिफारिस गरे । लगत्तै प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन भएकाले संसदीय सुनुवाइबिना नै ३२ जनालाई राष्ट्रपति विद्यादेवी भण्डारीले माघ २१ मा नियुक्त गरिन् ।

सर्वोच्च अदालतले पुनःस्थापना गरेपछिको प्रतिनिधिसभाले अस्वीकार गरेपछि अध्यादेश स्वतः निष्क्रिय भयो तर वैशाख २१ मा पनि फेरि अर्को अध्यादेश ल्याइयो, जसले प्रतिनिधिसभाले अस्वीकार गरे पनि अघिल्लो अध्यादेशअनुसार भएका नियुक्ति कायमै रहने व्यवस्था गरियो । त्यतिमात्र होइन, वैशाख २६ मा संवैधानिक परिषद्का अध्यक्ष ओली, सदस्यहरू जबरा र तिमिल्सिना बसेर थप २० जना पदाधिकारी नियुक्तिको सिफारिस गरे । फेरि पनि प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटन भएकाले संसदीय सुनुवाइ भएन, राष्ट्रपति भण्डारीले असार १० गते उनीहरूलाई पनि नियुक्ति दिइन् ।

अध्यादेश जारी हुनासाथ वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता दिनेश त्रिपाठी र अधिवक्ता ओमप्रकाश अर्यालले सर्वोच्चमा रिट दर्ता गरेका थिए । उनले दुवै अध्यादेश खारेज र त्यसअनुसार भएका नियुक्ति बदर गर्न तीन वटा निवेदन दर्ता गराएका छन् । वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता त्रिपाठीले पनि पहिलो पटक ल्याइएको अध्यादेश खारेज र नियुक्ति बदर गर्न माग गरेको निवेदन दर्ता गराएका छन् । प्रधानन्यायाधीशले यी रिट संवैधानिक इजलासमा पठाएका थिए, तर इजलासमा उनी पनि हुने भएकाले सुरुदेखि नै प्रश्न उठ्दै आएको थियो ।

शुक्रबार प्रारम्भिक सुनुवाइ तोकिएकोमा निवेदकले प्रधानन्यायाधीशको उपस्थितिमाथि प्रश्न उठाए र जबरा आफैंसमेत सहभागी भएर गरेका निर्णयहरूको न्यायिक निरूपण उनकै नेतृत्वको इजलासले गर्न नहुने कानुन व्यवसायीको माग थियो । ‘आफैंले गरेका निर्णयको संवैधानिक परीक्षण प्रधानन्यायाधीश आफैंले गर्न मिल्दैन । त्यो प्राकृतिक न्यायसम्बन्धी सिद्धान्तकै विपरीत हुन्छ भनेर हामीले माग गरेका हौं,’ अधिवक्ता अर्यालले भने ।

इजलासमा लामो विवाद भएपछि न्यायाधीशहरू सल्लाह गरेर जानकारी गराउँछौं भन्दै उठेका थिए । त्यसपछि प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा इजलासमा आएर आगामी शुक्रबारका लागि अर्को पेसी तोक्ने र रिटको पहिलो र अन्तिम सुनुवाइमा आफू संलग्न नहुने आदेश सुनाए ।

पहिलो दिन (आगामी शुक्रबार) इजलास गठन गर्दा प्रधानन्यायाधीश बिदामा बसेपछि अदालती व्यवस्थाअनुसार वरिष्ठतम् न्यायाधीश दीपककुमार कार्कीको नेतृत्वमा इजलास गठन हुनेछ । यसरी गठन भएको इजलासले नै अन्तिमसम्म सुनुवाइ गरी फैसला दिनेछ । यसरी प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा यो मुद्दाबाट अलग हुने भएका छन् ।

शुक्रबार प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराको नेतृत्वमा न्यायाधीशहरू कार्की, मीरा खड्का, हरिकृष्ण कार्की र ईश्वर खतिवडा संलग्न भएको संवैधानिक इजलास गठन भएको थियो । अब प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा संलग्न नहुने भएपछि अब वरिष्ठतम् न्यायाधीश कार्कीको नेतृत्वमा इजलास गठन हुनेछ, जसमा अर्का एक न्यायाधीश थपिनेछन् ।

यसरी यो मुद्दाको सुनुवाइमाथि लामो समयदेखि उठेको एउटा प्रश्न हल भएको छ । तर, संवैधानिक व्यवस्थामाथि बहस भने सुरु भएको छ । प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले आफू के कारणले मुद्दाबाट अलग हुनुपरेको हो भनेर लिखित आदेश गर्नुपर्थ्यो । तर, शुक्रबार कुनै लिखित आदेश जारी भएको छैन । ‘प्रधानन्यायाधीशले मुद्दाको सहज निरूपणका लागि आफू पहिलो र अन्तिम दिनको सुनुवाइमा संलग्न नहुने भनेर जानकारी दिनुभएको हो,’ सर्वोच्चका प्रवक्ता बाबुराम दाहालले भने ।

प्रधानन्यायाधीश संलग्न संवैधानिक परिषद्ले गरेका निर्णयको संवैधानिक परीक्षण उनकै नेतृत्वको इजलासबाट गर्नुपर्ने भएपछि विवाद निम्तिएको हो । संविधानको त्यो प्रावधान कानुनी सिद्धान्तको पनि विपरीत छ । तर, प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले चाहेको भए अहिलेको अवस्था आउनबाट टार्न सक्थे भन्ने कानुन व्यवसायीहरूको भनाइ छ । संवैधानिक परिषद्मा पदेन सदस्य हुने विपक्षी दलका नेता (तत्कालीन समयमा शेरबहादुर देउवा) र सभामुख अग्निप्रसाद सापकोटाबिनै पनि निर्णय गर्न सक्ने गरी तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीले अध्यादेशअनुसार ऐन संशोधन गरेपछिको नियुक्ति प्रक्रियामा प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरा संलग्न भए । उनको त्यही संलग्नताले अहिले संवैधानिक इजलासमा विवाद उब्जेको हो ।

‘यस्तो विवादास्पद अध्यादेश र त्यसअनुसार भएका नियुक्तिलाई कसै न कसैले अदालतमा चुनौती दिनेछन् र त्यो अवस्थामा म आफैं संलग्न भएर मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ गर्नुपर्ने भएकाले यस्तो निर्णयमा म सहभागी हुन सक्दिनँ भनेर उहाँले प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई बुझाउन सक्नुपर्थ्यो,’ सर्वोच्चका एक न्यायाधीशले भने, ‘उहाँले प्रचलित कानुनअनुसार मात्र निर्णय गरौं भनेको भए अहिले यस्तो अवस्था आउँदैनथ्यो । प्रधानन्यायाधीशले भाग लिएर आफ्ना मान्छे नियुक्ति गरेको भन्ने आलोचना त्यही बेला भएको थियो । अहिले त यो विषय इजलासमा समेत उठ्यो ।’

ओली सरकारले जारी गरेका नागरिकतासम्बन्धी अध्यादेश, बजेटमा समावेश भएको गिट्टी–ढुंगा भारत निकासीसम्बन्धी व्यवस्था बदर खारेज गर्न संवैधानिक इजलासले अन्तरिम आदेश नै दिइसकेको छ । तर, संवैधानिक नियुक्तिबारे रिट भने प्रधानन्यायाधीशले टार्दै आएका थिए ।

‘संवैधानिक इजलासको ‘रोस्टर’ मा रहेका हामी न्यायाधीशहरूले यो रिटमा पनि सुनुवाइ गर्न बारम्बार भन्दै आएका थियौं, अहिले मात्र उहाँले सुनुवाइ गर्ने त हुनुभयो । तर, आफ्नै इजलासमा तोकेका कारण विवाद निम्तियो,’ सर्वोच्चका ती न्यायाधीशले भने, ‘अहिलेलाई प्रधानन्यायाधीशले आफू दुई दिन बिदा बस्ने गरी बीचको बाटो सुझाउनुभएको छ । तर, त्यसले पनि सधैंलाई निकास दिँदैन । संवैधानिक परिषद्बाट निर्णय गर्दा प्रधानन्यायाधीशले विचार पुर्‍याउनुपर्छ भन्ने शिक्षा मिलेको हुनुपर्छ ।’

संवैधानिक कानुनविद् भीमार्जुन आचार्य एकाध घटनामा ‘बीचको बाटो’ खोजेर यो संवैधानिक जटिलताको अन्त्य नहुने बताउँछन् । ‘संविधान लेख्दा यसमा हेक्का पुगेन । त्यसैले यसको दीर्घकालीन समाधान भनेको त्यसको संशोधन नै हो,’ उनले भने, ‘तत्कालीन समाधानका लागि अदालतको निष्पक्षता कायम राख्न प्रधानन्यायाधीशले विवेक प्रयोग गर्ने हो ।’

संविधानविद् आचार्य विवादास्पद निर्णयमा सहभागी नहुनेदेखि त्यसको सुनुवाइबाट अलग हुनेसम्मका कदम उठाउनुपर्ने सुझाव दिन्छन् । अर्का संविधानविद् विपिन अधिकारी संविधान संशोधन गरेर दीर्घकालीन समाधान खोज्नुपर्ने तर त्यतिञ्जेल सर्वोच्च अदालत आफूकहाँ आइपुगेका विवादमा निर्णय नदिई बस्न नमिल्ने बताउँछन् । ‘सर्वोच्च अदालतले न्याय नगरी बस्न मिल्दैन, स्पष्ट मापदण्ड निर्धारण गरेर निर्णय दिनुपर्छ । प्रधानन्यायाधीश किन यी विवादको एक्टिभ डिस्कोर्समा सहभागी हुन नमिल्ने हो भन्ने पारदर्शी रूपमा भन्नुपर्छ,’ उनले भने, ‘इजलासको निष्पक्षता कायम गर्ने उद्देश्यले निर्णय गर्दा लुक्न, छिप्न जरुरी छैन । टिप्पणी लेखेर अलग भएपछि त्यो पछिका लागि नजिर बन्छ ।’

सर्वोच्च अदालतले सार्वजनिक गरेको ‘न्यायपालिकामा हुन सक्ने विकृति, विसंगति, अनियमितता वा भ्रष्टाचार एवम् बिचौलियाबाट हुन सक्ने क्रियाकलापहरू र त्यसको रोकथामका लागि चाल्नुपर्ने उपायहरूको सम्बन्धमा पेस गरेको प्रतिवेदन’ ले पनि संविधान संशोधनसम्मको सुझाव दिएको छ ।

संवैधानिक परिषद्मा प्रधानन्यायाधीशबाहेकका सबै राजनीतिक पदाधिकारीहरू हुने र परिषद्का निर्णयहरूविरुद्ध न्यायिक पुनरावलोकनका लागि अदालतमा आउने उल्लेख गर्दै परिषद्मा प्रधानन्यायाधीशको उपस्थिति आवश्यक छ वा छैन भन्नेबारे विस्तृत अध्ययन गर्न प्रस्ताव गरेको छ । प्रतिवेदनमा भनिएको छ, ‘परिषद्मा न्यायिक नेतृत्वको उपस्थितिका कारण स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकासम्बन्धी मूल्यमान्यतामा अनुचित प्रभाव पर्न सक्ने भन्ने प्रश्न उठेको छ ।’

प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले भने अध्यादेशविरुद्धको रिट सर्वोच्चमा पुगेपछि फेरि त्यस्तै अध्यादेशअनुसार बसेको बैठकमा बसेर नियुक्ति प्रक्रियामा सहभागी भएका छन् । उनले ती निर्णय ठीक थिए भनेर आफ्नो ‘पोजिसन’ समेत स्पष्ट पारिसकेका छन् ।

संवैधानिक परिषद्को सदस्यसमेत रहेका सभामुख सापकोटाले आफूलाई बैठकबारे जानकारी नै नदिई गरिएका नियुक्ति खारेज गर्न माग गर्दै सर्वोच्च अदालतमा २०७७ को माघ २५ मा दर्ता गराएको निवेदनमा परिषद्को सदस्यका रूपमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरालाई पनि विपक्षी बनाएका थिए । त्यो निवेदनमा सुनुवाइ गर्दै न्यायाधीश प्रकाशकुमार ढुंगानाले माघ २५ गते कारण देखाऊ आदेश दिए ।

यो आदेशअनुसार महान्यायाधिवक्ताको कार्यालयमार्फत सर्वोच्च अदालतलाई जवाफ पठाउँदै प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले अध्यादेश र त्यसअनुसार भएका नियुक्तिहरू संवैधानिक रहेको दाबी गरेका छन् । गत वर्षको चैत ११ मा सर्वोच्चमा दर्ता भएको लिखित जवाफमा उनले रिट निवेदनको औचित्य नरहेको भन्दै खारेज गर्न माग गरेका छन् ।

इजलासमै टिप्पणी : नियुक्तिमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई पनि भाग लागेको छ

शुक्रबार बहस सुरु भएपछि अधिवक्ता अर्यालले ‘गैरसंवैधानिक अध्यादेशमार्फत गरिएको नियुक्तिमा प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले भाग लिएको’ ले सो नियुक्तिविरुद्ध दायर रिटको सुनुवाइमा भाग लिन नमिल्ने जिकिर गरे ।

उनले प्रधानन्यायाधीशका तर्फबाट समावेशी आयोगका अध्यक्ष रामकृष्ण तिमिल्सिना, राष्ट्रिय मानवअधिकार आयोगका अध्यक्ष तपबहादुर मगर तथा जबराका ल फर्मका पार्टनरलाई नियुक्त गरिएको दाबी गरे । सर्वोच्च अदालतका पूर्वरजिस्ट्रार तिमिल्सिनालाई जबराले सुरुमा संवैधानिक इजलासको विज्ञ नियुक्त गरेका थिए । पदावधि बाँकी छँदै उनलाई समावेशी आयोगको सदस्यमा सिफारिस गरिएकामा उक्त पद तिमिल्सिनाले अस्वीकार गरेपछि अध्यक्ष बनाइएको हो ।

त्यस्तै सर्वोच्च अदालतका पूर्वन्यायाधीश मगरलाई जबराले नै राष्ट्रिय न्यायिक प्रतिष्ठानको कार्यकारी निर्देशक बनाएका थिए । त्यहाँ उनको पदावधि नसकिँदै राष्ट्रिय मानवअधिकार आयोगको अध्यक्ष बनाएपछि अधिवक्ता अर्यालले प्रधानन्यायाधीश पनि भागबन्डामा सहभागी भएको टिप्पणी गरेका हुन् ।

यस्तै मानवअधिकार आयोगकै सदस्यमा नियुक्त मनोज दुवाडी जबरा न्यायाधीश हुनुपूर्व एउटै ल फर्ममा पार्टनर थिए । अधिवक्ता अर्यालले यी विवरण इजलासमा राखेपछि प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले ‘समाजमा भ्रम फैलाउने गरी अनावश्यक कुरा नगर्न’ भन्दै सचेत गराएका थिए ।

जवाफमा अधिवक्ता अर्यालले पत्रपत्रिकाले रिपोर्ट गरिसकेको तथ्यलाई आफूले इजलासमा राखेको र कुनै भ्रम नफैलाएको दाबी गरे । संवैधानिक निकायहरूमा नियुक्तिको सिफारिस भएलगत्तै निर्वाचन आयुक्तहरू रामप्रसाद भण्डारी, सगुनशमशेर जबरा तथा अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोगका आयुक्त किशोरकुमार सिलवाललगायतलाई प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले नियुक्त गराएको समाचार सार्वजनिक भएका थिए । अधिवक्ता अर्यालले इजलासमा आफूले तिनै विवरण राखेको भन्दै प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई प्रतिरक्षात्मक नहुन आग्रह गरे ।

‘मैले विवरण राख्न खोज्दा श्रीमान् प्रतिरक्षात्मक हुनुभयो, यो मुद्दामा तपाईं संलग्न हुन किन मिल्दैन भन्ने कारण यही हो । तपाईं प्रतिरक्षात्मक बनेकै कारणाले इजलासबाट निष्पक्ष सुनुवाइ हुन्छ र मैले न्याय पाउँछु भनेर निवेदकका रूपमा मैले विश्वास गर्न सक्ने अवस्था भएन,’ अधिवक्ता अर्यालले इजलाससमक्ष भने । त्यसपछि प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले सैद्धान्तिक पक्षमा बहस गर्न फेरि सचेत गराए ।

कानुन व्यवसायीले प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबरालाई सुनुवाइबाट अलग हुन आग्रह गरेपछि सुरुमा उनले संविधानले नै संवैधानिक इजलासमा प्रधानन्यायाधीशलाई अनिवार्य गरेको स्मरण गराए । त्यसमा कानुन व्यवसायी सहमत भएनन् । त्यसपछि जबराले के विकल्प छ, सुझाउनुस् भनेर कानुन व्यवसायीलाई नै सोधे । जवाफमा अधिवक्ता अर्यालले भने, ‘श्रीमान् बिदामा बस्दा ठीक हुन्छ ।’

प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले आफू बिदामा बस्ने विकल्प उचित नभएको बताए । सुनुवाइ कहिले सकिने हो भन्ने निश्चितता नभएका कारण कति समय बिदामा बस्ने भन्ने अन्योल हुने उनको तर्क थियो । बरु, उनले अर्को विकल्प पनि सुझाए ।

प्रधानन्यायाधीशकै नेतृत्वमा न्यायाधीशहरू दीपककुमार कार्की, मीरा खड्का, हरिकृष्ण कार्की र ईश्वर खतिवडा संलग्न भएको इजलासमा आफूले कुनै राय नदिने, बाँकी चार जना न्यायाधीशको विचारमा आफू सहमत हुने र सुनुवाइका क्रममा आफूले कुनै ‘पोजिसन’ नलिने विकल्प उनले अगाडि सारे । तर, बाँकी चार जना न्यायाधीशको एउटै राय भएन र उनीहरू दुई–दुई जनामा बाँडिए भने प्रधानन्यायाधीशले निर्णायक मत दिनैपर्ने अवस्था आउने भन्दै कानुन व्यवसायी त्यो विकल्पमा पनि सहमत भएनन् ।

प्रधानन्यायाधीश जबराले इजलासमा संवैधानिक विवादका विषयहरू अन्य इजलासबाट पनि सुनुवाइ गर्न मिल्ने भनी सर्वोच्च अदालतले प्रतिनिधिसभा विघटनविरुद्धको पछिल्लो फैसलामा व्याख्या गरेकाले अन्य इजलासमा पठाउने विकल्प पनि रहेको उल्लेख गरे । तर, छलफलका क्रममा अन्य न्यायाधीशहरू पनि यो विकल्पमा सकारात्मक देखिएनन् । अध्यादेश संविधानसँग बाझिएको दाबी लिइएका कारण त्यस्ता निवेदन संवैधानिक इजलासले नै सुनुवाइ गर्नुपर्ने संविधानको व्यवस्था उनीहरूले सम्झाए ।

त्यसपछि न्यायाधीशहरूले आपसमा छलफल गर्न समय लिए, फर्केपछि प्रधानन्यायाधीशले इजलास गठन हुने पहिलो दिन र फैसला सुनाउने दिन बिदामा बस्ने जानकारी दिए । आगामी शुक्रबार उनी बिदामा बस्नेछन् र त्यही दिन वरिष्ठतम् न्यायाधीश दीपककुमार कार्कीको नेतृत्वमा संवैधानिक इजलास गठन हुनेछ जसले यो रिटको अन्तिम निरूपण गर्नेछ ।

[प्रकाशित : भाद्र १२, २०७८ ०८:१६]

काठमाडौं– पूर्व प्रधानन्यायाधीशहरूले संविधानमाथि राजनीति नगर्न दलका नेताहरूलाई चेतावनी दिएका छन्। नेपाल कानुन समाजले काठमाडौंमा आयोजना गरेको कार्यक्रममा पूर्व प्रधानन्यायाधीश श्रेष्ठले संविधानमाथि राजनीति नगर्न नेताहरुलाई सचेत गराएका हुन्। उनले संविधानलाई कसैले पनि गम्भीरतापूर्वक नलिएको आरोपसमेत लगाए।

पूर्वप्रधानन्यायाधीश श्रेष्ठले भने, ‘संविधानमाथि राजनीति भयो, संविधानलाई जुन ढंगले गम्भीरतापूर्वक लिने हो, त्यो लिएको जस्तो हामीलाई लाग्दैन, सत्ता कब्जा गर्ने दृष्टिकोण अहं रह्यो, संविधानले कायम गरेका कुरामा आबद्ध रहने क्रम अलिकम रह्यो।’

अर्की पूर्वप्रधानन्यायाधीश सुशीला कार्कीले अहिलेको राजनीति राजाको पालोको नमूना जस्तो भएको बताइन्। उनले संविधानको गलत व्याख्या र प्रयोग गरेर राजाको नमुना जस्तो राजनीति दलहरुले गरिरहेको भन्दै असन्तुष्टि व्यक्त गरिन्। राजनीतिमा सबै मै हुँ भन्ने अहंकार र आफ्नो दलका नेताहरुलाई समेत मिलाउन नसकेर दलमा कोलाहल पैदा भइरहेको पूर्व प्रधानन्यायाधीश कार्कीको भनाइ छ।

उनले भनिन्, ‘राजनीति वा देशको शासन कुनै एउटा दलले चलाउँछ भने त्यो दलले एउटा नमुना बनेर कसरी मुलुकलाई सञ्चालन गरेर जाने, कसरी राम्रो भन्दा राम्रो काम गर्दै लिएर जाने भन्ने हुन्छ तर यहाँ त भताभुंग छ।’ उनले आफ्नै दलभित्र पनि कोलाहल, दलका नेताहरुलाई मिलाउन नसक्ने, जे कुरा पनि मै हुँ भन्ने खालको अहंता रहेको बताइन्।

कार्यक्रममा कांग्रेसकी सचेतक पुष्पा भुसालले सरकार सर्वोच्चको परमादेशबाट नआएको दाबी गरिन्। उनले सांसदहरुले धारा ७६(५) अनुसार आफ्नो अधिकारलाई प्रयोग गरेर हस्ताक्षर बुझाएपछि मात्रै सर्वोच्चले प्रधानमन्त्रीको नियुक्ति प्रारम्भ गरेको बताइन्।

उनले भनिन्, ‘सर्वोच्चको संविधानिक इजलासले संविधान संरक्षकाका रुपमा र एउटा नजिर कायम गर्यो, यो सत्य कुरा हो, सरकार गठनका लागि जुन परिकल्पनाबाट हामीले ७६(५) को ७६ एकदेखि ५ सम्मको सरकारको गठन गर्ने प्रक्रिया संविधानमा लेखेका थियौँ त्यहीअनुसार सरकार गठन भएको हो।’

एमालेका नेता खिमलाल भट्टराईले अहिलेको मुख्य समस्या भनेको संविधानको व्याख्या र प्रयोगमा भएको बताए। उनले भने, ‘अहिलेको प्रमुख आवश्यकता र चुनौती संविधानको व्याख्या र प्रयोगमा छ, त्यो धारा ७६ को स्पष्टता आजको आवश्यकता हो, हामीले गर्न खोजेको के हो, भन्न खोजेको के हो ? संविधान बनाउँदा कुन हिसाबले लेख्यौं? त्यसको आसय के हो? यो टुंग्याउनुपर्ने विषय हो।’

सत्ता साझेदार नेकपा (माओवादी केन्द्र) का नेता तथा पूर्वमन्त्री वर्षमान पुनले संविधानको नेतृत्व गर्ने दलहरु नै संविधान कमजोर पार्न लागिपरेको बताए। उनले पहिला संविधानको विरोध गर्नेहरुले अहिले संविधानको रक्षा गरेको तर संविधानको नेतृत्व गर्नेहरु विरोधमा उत्रिरहेको बताए।

कार्यक्रममा पूर्वमन्त्री मोहम्मद इस्तियाक राई, राधेश्याम अधिकारी, नवराज सिलवाल, धर्मशिला चापागाईं, रमेश पौडेल, विपिन अधिकारी, इन्दु तुलाधर, लक्ष्मी परियार, बहादुरसिंह लामा, धर्मराज ज्ञवाली र प्रकाश पन्त लगायतले लोकतन्त्रको स्थिति कमजोर रहेको बताए।