Pokhara, 19 October | The nation is grappling with a constitutional crisis and the dissolution of the Parliament, with serious questions being raised about the conduct of CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli. The former Prime Minister is accused of maneuvering to destabilize the current non-political electoral government, headed by Sushila Karki, and prevent the crucial general election slated for February 21. A strong appeal has been made to every patriotic Nepali, including UML cadres, to demonstrate their patriotism through action by supporting the elections without obstruction.
The root causes of the current crisis are identified as the former ruler’s lust for power and the decision to block social media. The Gen Z youth movement, whose demands were not about capturing power but merely urging the ruler to resign if they couldn’t control corruption, was met with a deadly response. The failure of the former ruler to exercise timely wisdom led to the constitutional crisis and the massacre of 76 youths. Oli is criticized for acting like an opposition leader after being removed from power, continuing his resistance against the Karki government. It is noted that after 19 youths were massacred on August 23, the Army Chief advised resignation, yet Oli persisted with a “mad illusion” that resigning would lead to India “eating Nepal like Sikkim.”
Oli’s visible anger is linked to the Karki government’s decision to revoke unjustified privileges, such as excess vehicles, fuel, and security personnel, enjoyed by retired leaders, and the cancellation of his passport for being the subject of a genocide complaint and corruption investigation. Oli mocked the Karki government as one formed by “Ha-Ha-Hu-Hu” (chaos). It is alleged that instead of helping to resolve the crisis and facilitate the elections, Oli’s strategy is to refuse to accept the Gauribahadur Karki Investigation Commission report, demand Parliament’s reinstatement, and aim for a return to the prime ministerial office.
Regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives, it is argued that the President’s action, based on Articles 66(2) and 61(4) of the Constitution, should not be deemed unconstitutional. The dissolution is seen as a compulsion, not a choice, given the Prime Minister’s unpopularity due to corruption charges—forcing him to hide in an army barracks—and his subsequent failure to maintain contact with the President. This situation, where the head of the executive was unreachable, necessitated the President’s constitutional duty to appoint Sushila Karki as Prime Minister and dissolve the Parliament on her advice.
Furthermore, a demand has been made for an investigation into Oli’s claims that he had to step down because foreign powers disliked the new map and that he refrained from resigning during the massacre to “save the country.” Crucially, it is emphasized that the former Prime Minister is not immune from the genocide complaint filed against him, stressing that all are equal before the law. The Karki government is urged to be resolute in its commitment to initiate investigations into all major corruption scandals, including Giribandhu and the fake Bhutanese refugee scam, and to probe the assets of all officials who have held public office since 1990 (2047 B.S.). Comparing Oli’s position to the legal accountability faced by former executive heads like US President Bill Clinton and Indian Prime Ministers, the article highlights that the rule of law must prevail over any attempts to seek immunity.
