Kathmandu, April 22:

Legal experts today said the King’s offer to the seven political parties to form a new government under the existing Constitution’s Article 127 was in effect the same as the monarch appointing previous governments following his October 4, 2002 takeover.

“The parties have expressed their dissatisfaction at the King’s call. Even if they agree to his call, they will have just that much power as enjoyed by previous governments following the October 4, 2002 takeover,” former Supreme Court judge Krishna Jung Rayamajhi told this daily. He added that the royal address suggests that the King has no intention of addressing the ongoing movement or resolving the Maoist problem.

Rayamajhi also said, “The King has only changed the language of his address. He has failed to make any change in his roadmap, especially concerning the appointment of prime minister and tackling issues relating to peace and security, and restoration of democratic institutions through elections. The king’s reference to Article 35 giving power to the new government is nothing new since the King had already given the same power to former governments headed by Surya Bahadur Thapa and Sher Bahadur Deuba.”

However, Lokendra Bahadur Chand’s government formed after the dismissal of Deuba’s government for the first time, did not enjoy power. The Supreme Court while scrapping the Royal Commission for Corruption Control had ruled that sovereignty and state of authority remained with the people while executive power lay with the Council of Ministers. “The political parties’ acceptance of the Monarch’s call will only legitimise the monarch’s power to activate Article 127 any time and the executive will be accountable to the King but not to parliament,” Rayamajhi added.

“Similarly, the government will not have the right to reinstate the dissolved House,” Rayamajhi added. “If the King was serious about resolving the political conflict, he would have reinstated the House as a response to the call of the people in the ongoing movement,” he opined.

Constitutional expert Purnaman Shakya said the King failed to address the crisis since his only focus was on the appointment of a Prime Minister. “Since the royal call has failed to meet the people’s demands for revival of the House and election to the Constituent Assembly, the new government, if formed under article 127, will not have the authority to decide on these major demands.”