In the controversial provisions of the bill, the government side should be able to put forward alternatives to the satisfaction of the stakeholders, that the discretion of the committee and the exercise of the sovereign power of the parliament should be facilitated. Parliament/Committee should also fulfill its mandate and responsibilities.
The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (Third Amendment) Bill has been stalled for two months in the State Order and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives. Although the sub-committee led by Hridayram Thani has submitted a consensus report to the committee, Chairman Ramhari Khatiwada is playing a questionable role.
As the chairman, he has not been able to establish the justification for not taking the bill to further process. Meanwhile, the committee led by him has already submitted the report of the Prevention of Corruption (First Amendment) Bill to the House of Representatives.
The Authority Bill has become an example of the committee's weak decision-making capacity, the tendency for bills to get bogged down in the parliamentary process for years, the sovereign role of Parliament in law-making, and the meddling interest of the government. In the light of this bill, a debate is expected on the role of parliament in law making.
The Authority Bill and Corruption Prevention Bill, which were registered in the National Assembly in January 2076, have already spent five years. Both bills were passed by the National Assembly in March 2079 and came to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has also spent two years. There is no longer a problem with the Prevention of Corruption Act that has been passed by the committee, but the leadership of the committee and the government are not ready to move forward with the Authority Bill.
The sub-committee addressed the opinion that there should be a provision in the bill because the belief that corruption has increased under the guise of policy decisions made by the Council of Ministers is becoming stronger and the report of the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission also supported it. The
sub-committee gave a report with the definition that any decision made to benefit, facilitate or benefit a particular person or organization is not a policy, except for those that are equally applicable to the general public according to the law. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba disagreed with this, so the bill could not move forward. Chairman Khatiwada is also unable to move forward with it.
What provisions are included in the authority bill will be clear later. But unnecessarily restricting government decisions would be counterproductive. In such a situation, the country falls into indecisiveness. Therefore, the government should find an alternative way that does not restrict them from making prudent decisions and also prevents them from taking arbitrary decisions.
For that, further discussion should be done among the committee members, with the stakeholders, with the Prime Minister/former Prime Minister. However, the trend of not even discussing the bill and not moving forward is not appropriate.
The current debate is more comprehensive. It is not unusual for some bills in sensitive areas to take a long time to be finalized due to differences of opinion among parliamentarians with different ideological and theoretical beliefs, and the need to discuss with the concerned parties. Overall, the speed of the bills should be fast. But in recent years, the ability of parliament to make laws has decreased. Due to this, the government has also brought an ordinance. In the case of
ordinances, there are also hidden desires of the government. That is another part of the debate. Parliament should be able to show effectiveness in its work. In other words, if the government is not interested in the ordinance by showing the incompetence of the parliament, then the parliament should increase its effort to create laws. Otherwise, the government will defame the parliament and the parliament will become more innocent.
Prime Minister Oli, while addressing the House of Representatives on January 18, the day the current session of the Parliament began, expressed the view that the bill should be passed within 60 days. Deuba, the leader of Nepali Congress, the power partner and the largest party in the House of Representatives, did not specify the date but said that the parliament should speed up the pace of law making. But in reality, both of them are playing a role behind the scenes to prevent the authority bill from moving forward.
The bill could not proceed because of the definition of political corruption in the report prepared by the sub-committee formed by the State Arrangements Committee. Being the top leader of the ruling party, their interest is not unusual.
Parliament is also expected to have its own interest and defense towards the 'business' given by the government. All these things should be sought within the Parliament. Finding outside the Parliament will lead to interference or obstruction. In the controversial provisions of the bill, the government side should be able to put forward alternatives to the satisfaction of the stakeholders, that the discretion of the committee and the exercise of the sovereign power of the parliament should be facilitated. Parliament/Committee should also fulfill its mandate and responsibilities.
Parliament's sovereignty should be increased. Otherwise, the pressure of the government will become more natural, on the other hand, it will make the parliament inefficient. As a result, it can't do the job, giving strength to those who say the system is not right.
