People expect that the Maoist lawmakers would be punished as Speaker Subas Nembang himself vowed that he would take action against the guilty in accordance with the parliamentary regulations. But confusion prevails as the regulations mandate action only then and there if any lawmaker carries out any unbecoming act in parliament.[break]
Even the punishment that can be slapped on the guilty is very mild. The regulations say the speaker can order the lawmaker to leave the meeting hall and let the business resume. At the maximum, the speaker can suspend the guilty for 15 days following the incident, meaning the lawmaker can´t attend the parliament meeting during that time.
Tek Prasad Dhungana, legal advisor to the parliament secretariat, said the parliamentary regulations contain no provision of taking strong action against the lawmakers.
"It assumes that lawmakers are not notorious and that they don´t act irresponsibly, indecently and don´t involve themselves in untoward incidents," Dhungana explained the intent of the regulations. He further argued that formulating laws envisioning untoward activities inside parliament is to admit that lawmakers can be notorious.
He said the speaker-lawmakers relation is unique, based on a certain etiquette. "It´s not like relation between the prime minister and ministers in the cabinet. The executive head can even fire any of the members in his/her cabinet any time. But speaker can´t act against lawmakers in parliament in that manner," he said.
Officials also claim that there is no precedent of punishing any lawmaker in the parliamentary history of the country. Some notorious confrontations have taken place in parliament in the past as well. "In one such incident, Mahantha Thakur was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized during a scuffle in parliament. But no one was punished," an official said.
Condemnations of the Friday´s incident from major political parties are still pouring in. While Nepali Congress (NC) leaders termed it barbaric, CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal, who is believed to be sympathetic toward the Maoists, described it as "a pre-planned attack carried out in a guerrilla style".
But leaders from both the parties cannot cite any specific provision in the regulations to punish the Maoist lawmakers. NC Chief Whip Laxman Ghimire believes that the speaker, exercising his prerogative, can take action even in the aftermath of the incident.
Both Ghimire and UML chief whip argue that the speaker must take action against the guilty also not to encourage similar incidents in future.
Officials at the parliament secretariat, however, believe that the provisions relating to the code of conduct to be followed by lawmakers as mentioned in Chapter 18 of the Constituent Assembly (CA) Regulations, which are equally applicable for parliament as well, can be instrumental in monitoring such activities.
Though the code of conduct is more about the lawmakers´ behavioral performance, public morality, their duties and honesty, among other things, officials think that it can be helpful in reminding the lawmakers about their decorum.
But the parliament has not formed the Code of Conduct Monitoring Committee as provisioned in the CA Regulations so far. As per the regulations, such a committee is to be headed by the speaker and with deputy speaker as deputy head. Leaders of the 27 political parties represented in parliament become members and secretary general becomes secretary of such committee.
The committee can investigate issues like violation of code of conduct by lawmakers and can submit report to the secretariat.
"Such a report becomes public property and is kept in the parliament archives for future reference. This helps create moral pressure on politicians, who have to face the public during crucial times such as elections," Dhungana said.
Related story
Deputy Speaker Ruby Thakur assumes office
-1200x560-1776240217.webp)
