Any impeachment motion in the future should be settled within the stipulated time
Learning lessons from the months of suspension that former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana went last year, following an impeachment motion registered against him in the Parliament, the House of Representatives Regulations Drafting Committee has proposed shortening the period of the impeachment probe in the future. Accordingly, the committee has proposed completing the impeachment probe against the president and vice-president within three months, and that against the chief justice, members of the Judicial Council, and office bearers of other constitutional bodies within five months. This, according to a member of the drafting committee, will prevent the use of the impeachment motion from being used as a political weapon to keep alleged office bearers - other than the president and vice-president - from being suspended for the duration of the probe. The impeachment motion against Rana ended rather inconclusively, while he remained suspended for10 months until he finally retired in December.
On February 13 last year, 98 lawmakers from the Nepali Congress Party, CPN-Maoist Centre and CPN-Unified Socialist had registered the impeachment motion in the Federal Parliament, labelling 21 charges against Rana. They accused him of failing to maintain the sanctity of the Judiciary and seeking to share power with the executive in exchange for the verdict favouring the re-instatement of the dissolved HoR in July 2021 that brought Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC to power. Following the registration of the motion, the chief justice was suspended from office, which continued till he retired on December 13.retired on December 13.
According to the constitution, a debate on the impeachment motion should have started seven days after it was filed at the parliament secretariat, and an 11-member inquiry committee duly formed to study the impeachment motion and submit a report within three months. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
What was most shocking was the way suspended Rana was given a clean chit just days before his retirement on the ground that his suspension was no longer valid as fresh elections for the new House of Representatives had been held. And Rana's acquittal of the charges was made by Secretary General of the Parliament Secretariat, Bharat Raj Gautam, in his letter informing the President's Office, Prime Minister's Office, Constitutional Council and the Supreme Court. This created an uproar in the parliament, judiciary and among legal experts, with some terming it "unconstitutional" and arguing that the motion remains valid even in the new HoR. The Supreme Court has now ordered the Parliament Secretariat to procure the report submitted by the Impeachment Recommendations Committee that investigated the allegations against Rana, who is now retired. Does it thus hold meaning to discuss the impeachment motion when the person accused of wrongdoing is no longer in office? The proposals being submitted by the drafting committee have yet to be finalised, but, once they are approved by the parliament, it behooves the lawmakers to follow the law in both word and spirit so that any impeachment motion in the future is settled within the stipulated timeframe.
Show cause notice
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a show case notice to the Parliament Secretariat and others in response to a writ petition filed against Nepali Congress chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba, demanding that Deuba be barred from becoming the opposition leader in the House of Representatives (HoR).
The petitioners had argued that a political party that extends support to the Prime Minister and his government cannot enjoy the right to become the main opposition leader as per the existing law and parliament rules. The defenders are required to submit their argument to the court within 15 days.
The law has it that if a political party extends support to the government or becomes part of the council of ministers it cannot remain both in the ruling and opposition benches. If there are no other parties which have at least 10 per cent of the total seats of the HoR or the National Assembly, the Speaker may appoint one of the fringe parties in the House as the main opposition. In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition bench is crucial to ensure checks and balances of the government. It is quite strange that the Parliament Secretariat should recognise Deuba as the main opposition leader, who is an ex-officio member of the Constitutional Council, headed by the PM.
A version of this article appears in the print on February 10, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.
