The House of Representatives (HoR) is experiencing heated debate regarding a letter sent by Deputy Speaker Indira Rana to the U.S. Embassy requesting visa interview dates for individuals unrelated to her official role last year.

During the HoR meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, lawmakers from the ruling alliance, particularly the CPN-UML, urged the Deputy Speaker resign on moral grounds as questions were raised about her integrity, while opposition lawmakers from the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and CPN (Maoist Center) opposed this demand.

This comes in the wake of Prime Minister and UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli proposing to move a proposal in the parliament to remove her from the post during the meeting of top leaders of the ruling alliance held on Monday. The proposal was reportedly endorsed by the leaders of the ruling partners.  In this context, Kamal Bista of Republica spoke with UML Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula. Excerpts:

It is reported that the ruling alliance plans to oust Deputy Speaker Indira Rana Magar through parliament by mid-September. The UML has also reportedly issued a whip directing all its lawmakers not to leave Kathmandu Valley. Is this true?

First of all, let me clarify that the UML has not issued such a whip. The UML never does that. These are baseless rumors. The leaders of opposition parties, mainly the Maoist Center and RSP, have created this fictional story. What the UML always does is ensure regular attendance at HoR meetings and direct all lawmakers to attend.

Next, this has nothing to do with the government or the Deputy Speaker’s letter and alleged misconduct. The ruling alliance is not involved in this matter. However, if questions are raised in parliament regarding the Deputy Speaker's conduct being incompatible with her office, parliament will decide accordingly.

But some leaders of the ruling alliance who were present during the Monday meeting in Baluwatar claimed that Prime Minister Oli proposed to move a proposal to remove her from the post.

No, that’s completely wrong. Who told you this? Why would we lie to you? Yes, it is true that all partners of the ruling alliance share a common opinion regarding the Deputy Speaker's inappropriate actions. As for any punishment, it is a matter for the HoR. But let me tell you again, the government has not decided to file a removal motion against her to date. If we decide to file a removal proposal in the House, we will inform you in advance.

There is no need to hide or deceive anyone in this matter. If we wanted to, we could directly say that she has done something wrong and that she is not fit to remain in the position. Therefore, we would proceed through the necessary parliamentary process. But today, we are not in a position to say anything like that. I wonder why the leaders of opposition parties are repeatedly asking us to register a proposal.

During the HoR meeting on Tuesday, lawmakers from your own party and the coalition partner Nepali Congress (NC) demanded the Deputy Speaker’s resignation on moral grounds to pave the way for a new appointment. What do you say to this?

I told you earlier, I don’t know anything about this. You should ask those who are creating this fictional story—those who performed in the 'Kal Bhairavi' and 'Ugra Chandi' style during the parliament meeting. Since they know everything about the preparation to file a removal proposal and the directive not to leave Kathmandu Valley, they will be able to answer your questions. They have all the information.

Opposition parties have alleged that the ruling alliance is stirring up the issue of the Deputy Speaker’s moral conduct now to ensure NC's presence in the Constitutional Council. What do you have to say about this allegation?

I can tell you this is not true. Why would we need to do such a thing? This government doesn’t operate with such considerations in mind. Has any decision in the Constitutional Council ever been made against the Prime Minister's will? Have you ever heard of a vote in the Council? The opposition is trying to deflect attention by linking unrelated matters to cover up their own wrongdoings. They claim that we want to remove the Deputy Speaker because she’s a woman or from an indigenous community. But did we raise this issue because of her gender or ethnicity, or because of her actions and conduct? During yesterday’s meeting, one lawmaker, who is also a former minister from the Maoist party, spoke with tears in his eyes. It surprised me. They are trying to mislead this serious issue in the wrong direction.

What is your party’s stance on this issue?

We are firm and clear in our stance that the Deputy Speaker acted inappropriately and violated the decorum of her position. She has engaged in activities not related to her duties, such as communicating with the U.S. Embassy, which are not appropriate for her role. This is a serious breach of protocol for a Deputy Speaker. What could be a greater mistake than this? When questions about conduct are raised in parliament, there is talk of democracy being in jeopardy. What kind of definition of democracy is the RSP trying to provide? Democracy is about asking questions and ensuring accountability. They could have acknowledged their accountability and responsibility, but instead, they are raising questions against us, suggesting that asking questions is problematic. Are they threatening to incite unrest or start a movement? Who are they trying to intimidate? We are not going to be intimidated that way.

 
• Parliament
 
• Deputy_Speaker
 
• UML_Chief_Whip_Mahesh_Bartaula