KATHMANDU: A probe committee formed to investigate the incident that occurred during the meeting of the House of Representatives on May 31 has recommended that the Speaker immediately exercise the special powers granted under the House rules to maintain parliamentary order.
The committee concluded that the Speaker should strictly enforce provisions ranging from removing unparliamentary remarks from parliamentary records to expelling members from the meeting hall in cases involving offensive and provocative language.
The committee also recommended that lawmakers, the Federal Parliament Secretariat, and the Speaker take seriously the full implementation of the code of conduct and rules mentioned in the House of Representatives Regulations.
The report suggested improving orientation and awareness programs on parliamentary conduct, strengthening the role of party leadership and chief whips, upgrading security and technological management, adopting international best practices, activating the conduct monitoring committee, strengthening human resources and technology at the Parliament Secretariat, improving internal discipline and accountability of political parties, and making record management and CCTV monitoring more effective.
The committee was formed following the direction of Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal during the House meeting on June 1 to investigate the disturbance that took place a day earlier.
The three-member committee was led by House Secretary Prakash Adhikari, with Babita Mishra, chief of the Internal Resources and Planning Management Division, and Gopal Sigdel, chief of the Technology Management Division, as members.
The committee prepared its report after studying police records, audiovisual evidence, statements from eyewitnesses, and relevant documents. It submitted its preliminary report to Speaker Aryal on June 8.
Parliamentary decorum violated, committee concludes
The committee concluded that the incident involved violations of parliamentary dignity, weaknesses in the implementation of House rules, a lack of restraint among lawmakers, and significant management challenges.
According to the report, opposition lawmakers protested during the meeting after the question-answer session with the Prime Minister. The protest later escalated into a confrontation between ruling and opposition members, with some lawmakers surrounding the well, chanting slogans, and obstructing proceedings.
The report stated that some members attempted to climb onto tables near the Speaker’s dais, while physical confrontations occurred between lawmakers and security personnel responsible for maintaining order.
The committee noted that microphones and stands near the Speaker’s dais were damaged, parts of the front barrier of the Speaker’s table were broken, and other materials inside the chamber were damaged during the incident.
It also stated that security personnel had difficulty maintaining order due to limited space in the well area and the lack of sufficient coordination and equipment.
Second and third meetings also disrupted
The committee said opposition members continued protests during subsequent meetings of the day, blocking entrances used by the Speaker and continuing slogans even after the meetings resumed.
During the third meeting, amid continued protests and chanting, the government presented a proposal related to amendments received from the National Assembly on the Voter List (First Amendment) Bill, which was later approved by majority vote.
Rules provide authority for action
The committee highlighted provisions of the House of Representatives Regulations that allow the Speaker to take action against members who disrupt parliamentary proceedings.
Under the rules, the Speaker can issue warnings, order members to leave the meeting hall, suspend members for up to 15 days, and recover costs for damaged property.
The regulations also grant the Speaker authority to immediately remove members who engage in violent, destructive, or disorderly conduct inside the chamber with the assistance of security personnel.
The report recommended that these provisions be applied effectively to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Comment