Hearing procedure to get tougher

At least 50 per cent members required to endorse govt choices

35 days for studying complaints against nominees

Committee to evaluate qualification of the person/s picked for certain position

Committee may ask the government to review the nominations

KATHMANDU, April 18: Ambassadorial nominees Sukhdev Shah, Suresh Pradhan, Ram Swarth Ray, Surendra Karki and Chandra Kant Poudel proved lucky by just two weeks, as the parliamentary hearing committee has decided to take decision on whether to approve or reject nominations only through majority votes. However, this has to be passed by the House before it becomes a law. [break]

The ambassador nominees to the US, Germany, the UK, France and India became the last lot of the nominees for public office to face the most liberal form of parliamentary hearing.

Now onwards, such nominees will have to garner support of at least 50 per cent plus one member to get approval from the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee.

The committee on Friday decided unanimously to change its working procedure, introducing a system of taking any decision through majority votes. The new system will come into effect after the special committee’s report is endorsed by full House. The House will have to change the Legislature-Parliament Regulations to introduce the proposed system.

Even if only one member in the 71-member committee supports any nomination, the committee can’t reject it. In two year’s history of parliamentary hearing, not a single person nominated by the government has been rejected.

“The existing system of parliamentary hearing proved completely ineffective to check any wrong choices of the government because of its decision-making procedure,” said Nepali Congress Chief Whip in the parliament Laxman Ghimire who is also a member of the committee. “So we decided unanimously to introduce a system where at least 50 percent of the members should be satisfied that the choices are correct.”

The committee has 71 members. It needs at least 36 members to convene the committee meeting.

The committee also decided to extend timeframe for studying complaints against the nominees to 35 day from existing 15 days. As per existing rule, the government can go ahead with the appointment process if committee fails to complete entire hearing process within 15 days. As a result, the committee calls for complaints with a short notice of three or five days. Committee members concluded that receiving adequate complaints in three days was impossible.

The committee also decided to exercise right to ask the government to review its choices for the public offices including ambassadors if such choices deem inappropriate. “The committee decided to put a mandatory provision for the government to prove why the nominee is appropriate for the position and what the qualities for the position going to be fulfilled,” a member of the committee told myrepublica.com.

The committee, two weeks ago, had arrived at the conclusion to improve its working procedure after it received serious complaints against some of the ambassadorial nominees but could not stop the government from sending the names for agremo.

“For example, either ambassadorial nominee for Germany Suresh Pradhan should have been rejected or action should have been initiated against prime minister’s foreign affairs adviser Hira Bahadur Thapa who filed complaints against Pradhan,” said Ghimire.

“But we could do nothing except to hold a ritualistic hearing and send a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for necessary action.” Thapa had accused Pradhan of spying against a neighboring country, China, claimed that he was not fit for the job of Nepal’s ambassador’s to Germany.

Committee members could not support openly the nomination of Dr Sukhdev Shah as ambassador to USA but as per existing rule, the committee needs unanimous decision to accept or reject the nomination.

Though there were no serious complaint against Ray, the nominee for the UK, and no complaint against Karki and Poudel, the nominees for France and India, they also would have showed a clear majority of the committee in their support. Ray would have proved how a science teacher was eligible for a diplomatic job though ineligibility for the post was the only complaint against him.

yuvraj@myrepublica.com