KATHMANDU: Deputy Attorney General Padma Prasad Pandey has argued that the constitution of Nepal does not envisage about the Prime Minister’s resignation in the current situation.
Pleading on behalf of the government during the hearing on the case relating to the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) before the Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana and judges Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and Dr Ananda Mohan Bhattarai Tuesday, he argued that the PM’s resignation was not envisaged by the constitution.
“There is no provision in the constitution that the Prime Minister appointed in accordance with the Article 76 (3) of the constitution cannot stake a claim to the Prime Minister to appointed as per the Article 76 (5),” he said, adding that a member of the House of Representatives elected by a party must comply with the party’s statute. “The Article 76 (5) of the constitution has provisions about a party and anyone without association with a political party cannot be a member in the House of Representatives. The constitution allows the split of the party, but it is not allowed to support another party by sitting in the same party.’’
“Nepali Congress and Maoist-Center seem to have moved ahead with the party’s decision,” he added.
Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana has questioned whether Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, appointed in accordance with Article 76 (3) of the Constitution, could declare on his own that he would not seek a vote of confidence.
During the debate, Chief Justice Rana asked, “Shouldn’t this process go through the parliament? Can the Parliament be boycotted?”
In reply, Deputy Attorney General Pandey said, “There is no provision that a proposal of not seeking a motion of confidence should be tabled in the parliament. There is no need to follow the parliament procedures when one is convinced of not winning the confidence vote and surrenders.’’
Deputy Attorney General Pandey has been given two hours to put his statements and until the filing of this report, his debate continues.
Similarly, Pandey has argued that the President had to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) as she did not see any constitutional basis for the appointment of the Prime Minister.
He contended that HoR was dissolved as per the constitution since there was no clear basis in the claim made by both CPN (UML) Chair and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba for appointment to the post of Prime Minister.
When Chief Justice Rana asked him since this question has been raised as the process stipulated in Article 76 (5) of the Constitution has not been fulfilled and an alternative should have been sought in this situation, Deputy Attorney General Pandey said the President did not accept the claim made by both leaders as she ‘did not see any basis in both’. The Bench also cannot look into this matter, he said.
Comment