Leaders from major political parties and officials at the parliament secretariat had completed all the preparatory work for passage of the bill on Friday to amend the interim constitution through a shortcut in parliamentary procedures as per an understanding reached among the parties. Following the understanding reached to that effect among top political leaders, the government had registered the bill at the parliament secretariat earlier this week. [break]
While leaders from major political parties were for endorsing the amendment bill on Friday itself through suspension of a provision in parliamentary regulations that provides a 72-hour timeline to lawmakers to register any amendment to the bill, that could not happen as Maoist Chief Whip Dev Gurung, who is from the Baidya faction, said his party was not for suspending the provision and endorsing the bill in haste.
“Today (Friday) we couldn’t pass the bill as planned because Dev Gurungji stood against the previous understanding on endorsing it by shortcutting some of the procedures with a view to expedite the peace process and constitution writing,” Nepali Congress (NC) Chief Whip Laxman Ghimire told Republica.
UML Chief Whip Bhim Acharya said Gurung insisted on not shortcutting the procedures, arguing that he needed further consultations with his party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai, both of whom are abroad.
Gurung said the Maoists objected to constituting an expert panel with a status on par with a constitutional body. He said there is no need for mention in the constitution about the formation of such a body.
Gurung argued that formation of a constitutional body for the purpose of offering suggestions to the CA will undermine the role of the CA’s thematic committee on state restructuring which has already submitted a 14-province model to the CA. “If we give the expert committee statutory status, the body will not only be parallel to the CA committees but will in fact act as a superbody,” Gurung told Republica.
He said if the new body is formed as per a provision of the constitution, it might reject the CA committee’s report on the ground that CA committees are formed under CA regulations only. He said that formation of an expert committee with such “controversial” jurisdiction may invite problems in future. “We will be helpless if the expert panel discards the committee’s report. One may also file a case in court on similar grounds,” Gurung explained. “We therefore opted to hold further discussions.”
Gurung said they are for forming the expert panel without mentioning it in the constitution just like with the constituting of a taskforce or subcommittee under the Constitutional Committee. “If we have to give it constitutional status, then we also need to mention in the statute that the expert panel will make its suggestions on the basis of the CA thematic committee’s report,” said Gurung.
Leaders from other parties said they were taken aback by the Maoist volte-face because the same Maoist leaders had earlier stood against the idea of high-level commission for the same purpose.
Leaders from non-Maoist parties privy to developments said it was a reflection of Maoist intra-party feuding. “Leaders from the Baidya faction, who haven’t joined the government and protested key government decisions, just wanted to show their strength in parliament,” an NC leader told Republica. A UML leader echoed this.
Related story
Beyond the object on display
