Speaker Ghimire, who is in doubt about the government and the House of Representatives formed under the power of Gen-G, has sought advice from legal professionals, political party leaders, and even former Attorney Generals.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Speaker Devraj Ghimire appears to be in two minds over the dissolution of the House of Representatives and forming an interim government for elections.
After the name of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sushila Karki was proposed as the Prime Minister after the Genji movement on 27 Bhadra, Speaker Ghimire, who claimed to have acted as a bridge between the then acting Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and President Ram Chandra Poudel, is now seen in confusion.
After the Genji movement on 23 and 24 Bhadra, Speaker Ghimire left his residence and reached the police headquarters. After the name of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was proposed as the interim Prime Minister after the Genji movement, President Poudel also consulted with Speaker Ghimire.
The President had given Speaker Ghimire the responsibility of consulting and taking initiatives with the resigned Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on the formation of a new government. Speaker Ghimire had said in a meeting a few days ago that he had discussed the discussion on 26 and finding a solution in accordance with the constitution to provide a government to the country and that Karki's name was proposed by consensus.
He said that he had taken the initiative to find the best solution possible, but even though a better option could have been found, it was not possible due to pressure at the time. But a month after the formation of the government, Speaker Ghimire is confused about forming a position.
After being in doubt about the government formed under the power of Gen-G and the House of Representatives, Speaker Ghimire has held discussions with lawyers, political party leaders, and former Attorney General. Speaker Ghimire had held discussions with the chief whips on Wednesday.
On Thursday, he held discussions with the former Attorney General and Nepal Bar officials. The chief whips of the CPN-UML, Maoist Center, Nepali Congress, RPP, and Unified Socialist Party had reached Singha Durbar for Wednesday's discussion. The chief whips had mixed opinions.
The Maoist Center and RPP had voted against the re-establishment. The chief whips of the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress, however, said that the parliament should be restored. Speaking at the meeting, Nepali Congress Chief Whip Shyam Kumar Ghimire said that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional and commented that it would be better if a solution could be found through constitutional means. He said that it should be clear whether the solution now is the restoration of the parliament or elections.
‘The government is creating an environment for elections. If the government creates an environment for elections while maintaining peace and security, the Congress has no objection to going for a fresh mandate,’ he said, ‘If there is a fearless election, the Congress will not run away.’ Similarly, UML Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula had claimed that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was undemocratic and unconstitutional.
‘This (the decision to dissolve the House of Representatives on the 27th) is a regression. 8 parties have already issued a statement saying that it is unconstitutional. Now too, a solution must be found through constitutional means. Parliament must be restored,’ he said, ‘Parliament must be kept alive. The government has not prepared for the elections. There must be a judicial review of this. Political parties should create pressure in this. The Speaker should play a role. ’
But Maoist Center Chief Whip Hitraj Pandey said that the Genji movement was a rare event in history and suggested that the formation and dissolution of this government should be considered even if it appears unconstitutional when looking at the constitution. ‘The only way out in the current situation is elections.’ He said.
Similarly, United Socialist Party Vice President Rajendra Pandey said that the government should create an environment for elections and if the environment for elections is created, then the election should be held. Rekha Yadav, on behalf of the JSP, had said that the party had already decided to go for elections. After listening to everyone, Speaker Ghimire informed that a conclusion would be reached after discussion, saying what should be done to protect democracy, democracy and the constitution.
After understanding the party's position and still not being able to clear the quota, the Speaker called legal experts the next day. Former Attorney Generals Mahadev Yadav, Bharat Bahadur Karki and Khamba Bahadur Khati had reached the Speaker to discuss the matter. Yadav was the Attorney General when Sher Bahadur Deuba, Karki Madhav Nepal and Khati Deuba were the Prime Ministers. They had unanimously suggested to Speaker Ghimire not to go to court. Since 10 writs have been registered in the Supreme Court and the first hearing has been scheduled for Kartik 12, the Speaker has suggested that it would not be appropriate to go with the writs himself.
Former Attorney General and senior advocate Mahadev Yadav, who participated in the discussion, said that the Speaker should stand in favor of elections and suggested that he take the initiative for that. Yadav said that he had suggested that periodic elections should be the only option for democracy.
He said that the Speaker going to court would mean a lot and that the country would be heading towards disaster again if it were to dissolve. Similarly, Karki and Khati suggested that the parliament should be restored. They said that the decision to dissolve the parliament was unconstitutional, but the Speaker suggested that instead of going with a writ, the Speaker should wait for the court debate.
In Thursday's discussion, the Speaker had sought suggestions on how to move forward legally, politically and practically. The Bar has suggested that the Speaker not go to court against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. General Secretary Kedar Koirala said that they shared the view that the dissolution of the parliament was unconstitutional, but that the Speaker himself should not go to court.
'The Nepal Bar had made its opinion public on the day of dissolution that the dissolution of the parliament was unconstitutional.' The Bar is still in the same position, said General Secretary Koirala, 'The Speaker has been made a defendant in the writ, saying that the parliament should be restored. Therefore, we have suggested that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to go with the writ itself.'
He said that the Bar itself will not go with the writ and will argue as an amicus curiae and that the Bar is ready to defend on behalf of the Speaker. He said that Bar President Vijay Mishra said that everyone voted in favor of the parties going but the Speaker not going. He said that since the Speaker is a common position, he suggested that the court should not go as a quarrel.
'If it goes within the constitution, Sri Lanka has gone one way.' The Bar President said, 'If it goes outside the constitution and protests, the election may be uncertain like in Bangladesh.' Finally, the Speaker argued that even when he went back to the assembly, he could fulfill the demands of Genji. 'This also needs to be explained. If it is re-established now, the demands can be fulfilled.' Speaker Ghimire said, 'The parliament that came after the elections cannot fulfill the demands. By reinstating the House, Genji's demands will be fulfilled.''
Speaker Ghimire said that the House of Representatives that emerged from the election could not amend the constitution as Genji demanded.''
Former Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota suggested that the Speaker should not go to court with a writ petition himself as the current situation is different. He argued that the Speaker should not go to court as he is a common person and has been made a defendant in 10 writ petitions registered with the Supreme Court.''
'It seems that the government has been formed as per the demands raised by the new generation. We must go for a new mandate. Rather than considering whether dissolution is constitutional or unconstitutional, the date of the election has been announced, so we should go for it.'' Sapkota said, 'What to do is a matter for the Speaker to consider. But everyone's duty is to focus on the election environment.''
He said that since the Speaker himself was going to form the government in the past, now when he is demanding reinstatement, it seems that he is influenced by the party from which he came. He said that the Speaker had not made a statement on the issue public from the beginning, but it would not be appropriate to take a position now.
Former Deputy Speaker Pushpa Bhusal said that the Speaker should not go to court against the dissolution. She said that the Speaker should play a role in getting a quick decision from outside rather than going to court himself. She said that some writs have been filed in the court and since the court is the party against them, it is his responsibility to implement the decision, so he should not go. ‘Now the cases have reached the court. The Speaker is a common position for everyone. A decision should not be taken in a way that is partisan,’ said former Deputy Speaker Bhusal, ‘It is appropriate to sit outside and wait.’
