Lack of cooperation from House and Speaker prompted HoR’s dissolution: AG Kharel

KATHMANDU: Attorney General Agni Prasad Kharel has argued that non-approval of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact and failure to move various bills including the bill on opening up cannabis cultivation made the government realize that the House of Representatives (HoR) did not cooperate with the government making the dissolution of HoR a must.

Continuing his debate in the Constitutional court Tuesday on the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of the HoR, government’s attorney Kharel argued that the HoR had to be dissolved because the parliament did not cooperate with the government.

Kharel claimed that various bills including the bill related to Prison Management, Madan Bhandari Technical School, Federal Civil Service and Public Service Bill have been stuck in the parliament for a long time.

He argued that passing some bills and agreement would be important from the point of view of national and international relations

“It is the responsibility of the government to pass such bills, but the government was not allowed to fulfill those obligations,” Attorney General argued during the hearing adding, “Whether those bills fail or pass in the parliament is a different matter but there is no atmosphere for discussion in the parliament.”

He claimed that even the Speaker of the HoR did not cooperate with the government, and did not attend the meeting of the Constitutional Council due to which various posts in the constitutional bodies could not be fulfilled for a long time.

During the hearing, Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla had asked Kharel about the relationship between the lack of cooperation from the party and the parliament and the bill being not tabled for motion.

Responding to her, the Attorney General said that some bills must be passed to maintain international relationships, yet such important bills were also not tabled for discussion and reiterated that the dissolution of the HoR is justifiable.

He claimed that Prime Minister Oli was still the leader of the parliamentary party and that no other alternative had been found, he argued that the PM’s move is constitutional as well.