This is a complete nonsense. I strongly object the validity of the Nepalese Parliament proclammation.
First,this parliament is not a elected body. It was reinstated on the basis of muscle power. It solely doesnot represent the spirit of Nepalese people.FEW HUNDRED THOUSANDS HOOLIGANS DO NOT REPRESENT 27 MILLION POPULATION OF NEPAL. If they have faith in people, they should have taken it to public voting. Is there anyone who dares? What a shame?

This govt. does not have the mandate of the people to do all that. It is all nonesense. They are going haywire. They have no lagaam. How can ex parliamentarians do all that? Who gave them the mandate to declare Nepal a secular state???

Question of legality



BY BIPIN ADHIKARI



The Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government has dissolved the municipal bodies constituted after the February 2006 polls, decided to rescind all legislation, decrees, appointments and other moves made by the king-led government, declared ceasefire, dropped the terrorism-related charges against the Maoists, and asked Interpol to quash international arrest warrants for their leaders. It has also ordered a judicial inquiry on the abuse of power by the security forces during the mass movement last month. Additionally, the CPN (Maoist) has also been called to come forward to discuss with the government on how to get ahead with the contentious issues.

There seems to be a popular opinion in Kathmandu, often supported by the mainstream media, that since the reinstatement of the House is politically enforced, it is not necessary for the newly constituted government and the House of Representatives to conform to the existing constitutional process in their plan, programs and decision-making.

Even some established lawyers who took part in the mass movement are saying that the movement backs up the SPA government, and the legal and constitutional underpinnings do not matter much in the process. It is on this ground, for example, that the splinter Nepali Congress (Democratic) was given a party status in the House of Representatives, disregarding the law, which states otherwise. As popular sovereignty does not mean the sovereignty of the politicians, or their executive or technical hands, the compliance with the rule of law is as much necessary in the transitional business of the government as the need to make sure that the state functionaries including the House of Representatives act according to the rule of law, and refrain from minimizing the existing constitutional and fundamental rights standards. The sanctity of the rule of law must be preserved in the transitional process until a new rule of law is established and there is a dependable exit to a better constitutional regime.

The reinstatement of the House of Representatives, dissolved four years ago, was demanded by the SPA, because they thought a legitimate forum, based on certain constitutional parameters, to discuss the prime agendas of the nation could be immediately available, and which would not be compromised by anybody. But this objective seems to be dwindling, and the activities of the government are being done haphazardly. The first and foremost requirement at present therefore is to legitimize the House reinstated by the king by amending the Constitution, and giving it powers, responsibilities and life, and a clear constitutional status befitting the transitional process (in all areas where it cannot give outlet to the current political agenda). This obviously necessitates the reinstatement of the National Assembly and implementation of the rules regarding parliamentary decision-making. Such an amendment must also provide for interim arrangement as agreed with the Maoists. Until the constituent assembly completes its job, the role of the House in maintaining continued legality, performing essential legislative functions, and forming an interim government will remain crucial.

This arrangement can also keep the Supreme Court functionally alive to check when the government is acting ultra virus the Constitution.

The most important among the contentious issues is the formation of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution as called by the Maoists. From the French Constituent Assembly of 1789 to the Peru's Alberto Fujimori's Democratic Constitutional Congress of 1992, the world has seen dozens of constituent assemblies. There has been so far not a perfect example of a constituent assembly, or a perfect written constitution ever produced by it.

South Africa 's Constitution of 1996 is considered comparatively better. It is because of the result of remarkably detailed and inclusive negotiations done by its constituent assembly- with the support of a charismatic Nelson Mandela. In all, it took seven years, from 1989 to 1996, to complete the final document.

Almost five years elapsed between the first meeting between African National Congress and Prime Minister P W Botha in 1989 and agreement on an interim constitution and the first non-racial election in 1994. Through these years, outbreaks of violence threatened the process. But the leadership of Mandela and his pragmatic approach helped the process considerably.

The 'historical' enemies in South Africa succeeded in negotiating a peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy exactly because they were prepared to accept the inherent capacity for goodness in the other. Mandela wanted South Africans never to give up on the belief in goodness, and continue to cherish that faith in human beings as a cornerstone of their democracy. He was largely successful.

This does not always happen, especially when there is a communist or a totalitarian movement. Nepal is basically capitalizing on hatred against the king, and the revolutionary fervor is demobilizing many important values that Nepal needs to protect in its reformative moves. The SPA have already shown that old habits die hard.

Throughout the 19th century, Russian reformers demanded the setting up of a democratically elected Constituent Assembly. After King (Czar) Nicholas II abdicated on 1st March, 1917, the new provisional government announced it would introduce a Constituent Assembly. A total of 703 candidates were elected to the Constituent Assembly in November, 1917. This included socialist revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Constitutional Democratic Party. The position of the Bolshevik was not better. They were bitterly disappointed with the result as they had hoped it would legitimize what they proclaimed as the October Revolution. Thus, when the constituent assembly rejected Vladimir Lenin's Bolshevik programmes, he announced its dissolution asserting that the October revolution stands higher than the formal rights of the constituent assembly, and its attempt to disregard the class struggle and civil war would be a betrayal of the proletariat's cause, and the adoption of the bourgeois standpoint. Soon afterwards all opposition political groups were banned in Russia.

The October revolution was not the revolution of the Russian masses; it was the forceful takeover of the interim regime by the Bolsheviks.

Nepal is at present in that stage. What is going on, by itself, is not unfortunate. What is unfortunate is the failure to understand the scenario. The question of course is not simply the constituent assembly and the constitutional framework that will be ultimately adopted, but whether or not that framework is a viable instrument from which the country can emerge and persist as an independent, nationalist and democratic society. A strong commitment to the rule of law is necessary to overcome this challenge.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com

hahaha mandale haru

janatako jan aandolan bata jaageko samsad ho

janata le je chahancha tehi huncha

sarbabhaum satta janata ma

janatale nai sambidhan lekhchan ..

they figure out what to do next..
now on its always legit.

coz we are legit
and we know what we want...

its our RIGHT

not anyones grace

Did the janata know that Nepal would be a secular country? Were the janta who demonstrated in KTM informed and educated about all the things they are doing today??

Ha ha ha ha, what happened to your bahun-bashing threads? I would have thought that Nepal as a "Hindu kingdom" would be more favorable to bahuns and those other elitists out there. Since you're against bahuns, wouldn't you be for secularism? I don't understand.

when a handful of the king"s army and the king could represent and dissolve the people elected parliament and changes the constitution. why couldn't millions of nepalese who came out in the street represent the democratic loving Nepalese?

why can't we see the king's supportors on the street now? Doesn't nepal belong to all nepalese no matter which religion they are from? so why is this country called hindu state? so i think what ever decision made my the parliament is right and thanks to Girija Psd koilara they won't be any parasite in this country. long live GIRIJA PRASAD KOIRALA.

yeah and whateve happened to your not liking bahuns? u sob suddenly you like all hindu people is it moron bineete chor desh cod sale mandaley

That first post in this thread appears to exactly match someone's post on BBC's "Have Your Say". What a coincidence.

- http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1833&edition=2&ttl=20060519031944&#paginator

what king did was not legal what these PMs are doing is not legal either.No constitution-No law.Dumb Ass Politicians/Leaders /kings of nepal can't do one thing legal.Bloody commies(uml,maoist) will take over Nepal .

Probably not but what is?

>>> First,this parliament is not a elected body.
I thought they were elected few years back.

>> > It was reinstated on the basis of muscle power.
Yes, but not by bullets.

>>> It solely doesnot represent the spirit of Nepalese people.
Why are not people coming to protest it then? who are they afraid of?

>>> FEW HUNDRED THOUSANDS HOOLIGANS DO NOT REPRESENT 27 MILLION POPULATION OF NEPAL.
What about few thousands elites? do they represent 27 million people.

>>> If they have faith in people, they should have taken it to public voting. Is there anyone who dares? What a shame?
People are holding election not Royalties. Dare to face public voting? Ready for a fair bout? Shame on those who wanted unfair advantage of being above the law.

Now Girija is above the!! No question about it! Prachand and Babu Ram is above the law! No doubt!! Nepali janta haru le GU khojeko thye GU paye!!!

It is a illegitimate and unconstitutional govt. formed on the basis of Maoists backup. They had not informed or taken consent from the people for all the things they did today including the declaration of Nepal to be a secular state.

Anyone having brains can guess it is Indians and Moriarty doing all this.

NO, none of them are above law.

INDIAN AND US interest no maoist thats it ,JOSHI,In my view :they don't care there is king or not .they don't care whether Nepal is secular or not. They don't really care about nepalese people nor politicians .They just don't want commies.Thats it.It is not indian game nor us .But game is begining.who wins commies or democratic forces(us,congress,india)????

India 's wish
Kathmandu, 15 May: PM Girija Prasad Koirala and Deputy PM K.P. Oli have been separately invited by the Indian government for a visit to Delhi, writes Dibya Darshan weekly.

The Indian government has a plan of helping Nepal financially and physically through to its ‘Himalayan Marshal Plan’ though this proposition of India is said to play a decisive role for the development of Nepal its details has not been made public yet.

People’s News/Kumod

Maoists' order
Kathmandu , 16 May: Maoists have warned the government not to restore local committee or else the twelve-point agreement would be broken, writes National News weekly.

Since the government decided to restore local committee after a serious dispute with the seven-party, Shalikram Jamarkattel, president of Maoists affiliated organization Federation of Nepal Trade Union (Revolutionary) has warned the government not to restore local committee.

People’s News/Kumod

man this is all just to please maobadi, why do u think they didnt kick the king out, they could have if they wanted.
Even Girija knows, the minute the king is out, prachanda will kick him out.
and do u even really think army will want to be under these fuc_ked up politician.

this is just a game..welcome to nepali politics.

Proclamation illegal: Ganesh Raj Sharma
By Bhola B Rana

Kathmandu , 18 May: Senior advocate Ganesh Raj Sharma said a political proclamation being made by the House of Representatives is illegal, Shamakaleen reports.

In an interview to BBC Nepali Service yesterday, constitution expert Sharma said when there was no revolution to throw away the constitution, he suggested not to make any declaration against the spirit of the constitution.

He argued parliament functions under law. He warned the country will face a future crisis is a wrong convention is established to bypass the constitution.

He said: "If political decisions are going to be taken through the use of force, another power tomorrow can overturn the decision."

Sharma asked those calling for the rule of law to govern through the rule of law. He suggested amendments in the constitution instead of announcing a proclamation from the House of Representatives.

He said the rule of law means to move within the parameters of the constitution.

He said the leadership of the seven parties should be declared all-powerful if the constitution is to be bypassed.

'This House of Representatives is not the supreme body and it cannot do anything as it likes," The Himalayan Times quoted Attorney General Yagya Murti Banjade as saying.

The Attorney General is the government's chief legal advisor.

The newspaper reported Thursday: "He also questioned the legitimacy of the much-expected declaration of the House. "How can the declaration get legitimacy?'"

"People will not accept autocracy from any quarter, Banjade said. "Unless the declaration is incorporated into the Constitution through amendment, how can we believe that it is part of the Constitution?" he asked the newspaper reported.

Advocate Bhimarjun Acharya said that such a declaration of supremacy of the parliament is sheer violation of the rule of law.

"This is nothing but undermining the rule of law and lacking in legitimacy," he said, adding that it amounted to nothing different from the "King's autocracy."

People’s News/BR


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------