July 7, Kathmandu. The then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who twice led the appointment of 52 constitutional office-bearers, is now defending his role as Leader of the Main Opposition.
Oli, who led the Constitutional Council as prime minister, is now a member of the council as the leader of the main opposition party. He has now written a reply to the writ petition filed against him at that time.
He raised the issue of continuity and succession of the government at the outset and demanded that even the present government should defend the decision taken by the government led by him. Stating that Nepal’s constitution and law do not make the opposition party accountable, he claimed that it was wrong to ask for a written reply from him.
“This is against the constitution, the continuity of the government and the parliamentary system,” Oli said in a written reply.
Stating that it was his responsibility to make the constitution effective after the formation of the government under his leadership at that time, he claimed that the work of the Constitutional Council was obstructed due to the two members of the council. He alleged that the meeting was being adjourned due to Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota, a member of the Constitutional Council, and Leader of the Main Opposition Sher Bahadur Deuba.
He has claimed that the first ordinance regarding the Constitutional Council came into force and the second ordinance came after it became inactive. Stating that the ordinance did not bar the officials of the Constitutional Council from participating in the meeting or participating in the decision-making process, he argued that it was not necessary to repeal the ordinance as it did not infringe on the fundamental rights of anyone.
Oli has questioned the legitimacy of the petition, saying the ordinance is now a dead law and the constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to repeal the “dead law”. And they have claimed that the quorum changed by the ordinance cannot be said to be against the constitution.
Trying to justify it, he said in a written reply, “The ordinance issued to manipulate the quorum is constitutional in case the posts of the members of the Constitutional Council are vacant or the members are obstructing the constitutional appointment without fulfilling their constitutional obligations.”
Stating that the quorum number has been provided so that the proceedings are not stopped, he claimed that the quorum number of the Constitutional Council will not prohibit other members or office bearers. Stating that the ordinance was issued to prevent the country from being held hostage without any member of the Constitutional Council meeting and to make the constitution effective, he claimed that the argument that the constitution would be forged and the basic structure of the constitution would be destroyed would not be correct.
He claimed that the law interpretation act 2010 also provided that the work done while the ordinance was valid would be lawful. On that basis, they have claimed that it is not necessary to revoke the appointments made on the basis of the ordinance and make the ordinance ineffective from the very beginning. He said in a written reply that the Attorney General’s Office did not have any provision to defend the law of the opposition.
External News Source
News Posted on https://www.scriling.com/external-source/ and tagged inside the external news source category is automatically posted via external sources and translated using Google Translate. Some info and dates might alter as translation is automatic we extremely recommend reading original stories and clicking links at the end of the article of the externally sourced article to get exact correct news.
Source by Original story