KATHMANDU, FEBRUARY 14
The House of Representatives Regulation Drafting Committee has agreed to incorporate a provision whereby an impeachment motion filed in the HoR will not be rendered ineffective if the HoR tenure ends and such motions will be taken up in the new HoR.
In the previous HoR, opinions were divided about whether or not the impeachment motion filed against the then chief justice, Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana, should be transferred to the new HoR as the previous HoR could not finish action on the motion. Relevant acts and HoR regulations were silent about the fate of the impeachment motion in the new HoR.
Sarvendra Nath Shukla, a member of the House of Representatives Regulations Drafting Committee, said committee members agreed to incorporate provisions to allow the new HoR to take up impeachment motion filed in the previous HoR that remained unresolved. "Normally bills registered in one HoR cannot be taken up in the new HoR after parliamentary elections, but since impeachment motions are different, we agreed to have a provision that would allow the new House to take up the impeachment motion that did not conclude in the previous HoR," Shukla said. He said if the impeachment motion was not allowed to be taken up in the new HoR, constitutional post holders who could be guilty of an alleged crime, might get off scot free.
The committee has proposed a provision whereby the impeachment motion filed against the president or the vice-president should be completed within three months and in the case of other constitutional post holders investigation should be completed within five months. "If an impeachment motion filed in one HoR one or two months before the expiry of the HoR tenure is not taken up by new HoR, the constitutional post holders facing impeachment, who may be guilty of the alleged crime, may get off scot free," Shukla added.
The committee has forged consensus on many issues, but it is yet to agree on whether or not a lawmaker facing criminal charges should be suspended before the court delivers verdict in the case.
A committee member said all members agreed that a lawmaker who was convicted in a criminal case should be suspended after the court verdict, but some lawmakers, including independent lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh, opposed such provisions, arguing that suspending lawmakers facing criminal charges could be misused by police and the government.
Shukla said some members opined that lawmakers facing criminal charges should not be allowed to take part in House proceedings and should be deprived of pay and perks, but should not be legally suspended.
Nepali Congress Chief Whip Ramesh Lekhak, who is a member of the HoR Regulation Drafting Committee, said any lawmaker who had been sent to judicial remand or prison after conviction should be automatically suspended, but such order or verdict should be delivered by courts of law, not quasi-judicial bodies such as chief district officers or district forest officers, because those bodies could be prejudiced and might falsely implicate lawmakers . He said the panel could finalise the regulation tomorrow.
Section 33 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-2002 provisions for automatic suspension of a public servant if a corruption case is filed against him/her.
"Otherwise, constitutional post holders who could be guilty of a crime, might get off scot free"
A version of this article appears in the print on February 15, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.
