Kathmandu. In the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee on Chaitra 29, lawmakers demanded that former King Shah be held responsible for the Tinkune incident and that he be summoned to the parliamentary committee to seek an explanation.
CPN-UML Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula, Nepali Congress MP Jeevan Pariyar and some other lawmakers have demanded that the former king be called to the committee for an explanation, holding him responsible for the incident.
However, in the committee’s record so far, no explanation has been taken by calling him to the parliamentary committee on political matters. Or rather, there is no provision to call the former king to the committee. There is no practice of discussing issues within the executive’s jurisdiction and political issues in the committee.
Two youths lost their lives during the protest on Chaitra 15. When the police opened fire on the protesters to control the protest, one person (Sabin Maharjan of Kirtipur) died, and dozens were injured.
In addition, another journalist (Suresh Rajak) died in a house that caught fire while reporting. Various government and private physical structures were destroyed. The Prime Minister, opposition party leaders, and ruling party leaders are currently questioning the same issue.
From the House to the streets, leaders of the government, ruling, and opposition political parties have been arguing that former King Gyanendra Shah should be held accountable. Joint Secretary and Spokesperson of the Federal Parliament Secretariat, Ekram Giri, said that there is a provision that the executive’s jurisdiction and political issues are not discussed in the committee and that the issue of inviting the former king to the committee is a personal opinion of the MPs.
He argued that the provisions regarding the work of a committee of parliament (House of Representatives and National Assembly) are specifically provided for in the rules of the assembly and that there is no practice of calling political issues to the committee in the rules of the assembly.
He said that the basis for the work of the committee is provided for in the constitution and the rules of the assembly, and that there is a practice of inviting experts from various subjects to the committee in the context of the work of the parliament.
In the context of lawmaking, the committee is concerned He mentioned that only ministries, subject experts, and stakeholders are invited. Although it is not that the committee cannot be invited on matters related to its scope of work, it is not the practice of inviting political issues and drawing conclusions.
He said, “In the context of the work of a committee of the parliament, arrangements are made in the rules of the assembly. In the case of the assembly, the rules are also in the rules, the constitution, the rules of the assembly and the committee are the bases on which the assembly and the committee work. In the context of the work of the parliament, the parliament is in the practice of inviting various subject experts to the committee. In particular, the parliament does the work of lawmaking. It does the work of monitoring. It reduces public representation. It does other things.”
Joint Secretary Giri said that the government should be accountable to the parliament and the parliament should make it accountable. He said that if a complaint is not received, the committee can call the government and make it accountable to the parliament. The House of Representatives Rules 2079 BS have made provisions that the committee can receive complaints and discuss and conclude complaints of public importance.
He mentioned that the complaint is not the only basis, but that the committee does receive complaints and discusses the complaints as needed if they are related to its scope of work.
He said, ‘Generally, both in principle and practice, the government should be accountable to the parliament. The parliament makes it accountable. The committee means the mini-parliament to make it accountable. The government is invited to the mini-parliament and discussed. A complaint is one of the cases. Even if there is no complaint, the committee can convene meetings to seek opinions, advice, and suggestions on various matters within its scope of work, including lawmaking and monitoring.’
‘The House of Representatives Rules 2079 provide that the committee can receive complaints and discuss and reach a conclusion on complaints of public importance. It is not that complaints are the only basis. But complaints do come to the committee, and the committee discusses the complaints as needed if they are related to its scope of work. Theoretically, wherever in the world, the legislature and parliament have exercised the sovereignty vested in the people,’ he said.
Joint Secretary Giri mentioned that there is a theoretical understanding that there is no such thing as a parliament that cannot do anything if necessary.
प्रतिक्रिया दिनुहोस्