KATHMANDU: Chairman of the main opposition party CPN-UML KP Sharma Oli has strongly defended his action of dissolving the parliament while he was the Prime Minister.
Speaking at the last meeting of the 11th session of the House of Representatives on Saturday, President Oli defended the dissolution of the parliament a year and a half ago when he was the prime minister.
Elections are being held on November 20 to elect a new parliament.
Oli said elections should have been held within six months when the parliament was not able to form a government. He questioned, “Where is it written that the parliament had to last its full five years term?”
He said, “When the parliament was unable to form a government, elections should have been held within six months.”
“When a government cannot be formed as envisioned by Article 76 (2) of the Constitution, the government is formed according to Article 76 (3). The government formed as per 76 (3) should muster a vote of confidence within a month after its formation. If the government fails to get a vote of confidence as stated by Article 76 (5), then there should be an election as per clause 7,” the main opposition leader explained.
Oli added, “The erstwhile opposition protested demanding first opportunity to the leader of the opposition to speak. They surrounded the well and obstructed the parliament. I didn’t demand, as the erstwhile opposition, to speak first in parliament as I later became the opposition. Seasonal matters have no meaning in politics. A certain course has to be taken.”
Oli said, “Had I been allowed to proceed without hindrance, the election would have been held in April last year. The incumbent Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has announced the election now. So is he regressing? Had I been allowed to proceed smoothly, the House of Representatives elections could have been held in April last year. Seeking people’s mandate cannot be regression.”
Oli charged that though the Supreme Court could not order to form the government, it was made to do so in violation of the constitution. He asserted that the alliance formed against then regime was for political interests.
Comment