What Does the Investigation Committee Report Say About the Parliamentary Clash in Nepal?
Photo Source, Nepal Photo Library
The inquiry committee formed regarding the scuffle between ruling and opposition MPs on June 30th (Jestha 17) has emphasized the necessity for the Speaker to strictly enforce the provisions of the House Rules of Procedure.
The committee also recommended the immediate exercise of the Speaker’s special powers, according to the Speaker’s personal secretary, Navaraj Pandey.
The inquiry committee’s findings state, “In cases of use of words such as ‘indecent’ and ‘provocative’, effective implementation of the rules of procedure must be ensured, including removing such statements from the parliamentary records and expelling members from the session.” This must be enforced by the Speaker “strictly.”
The committee recommended that MPs, the Federal Parliament Secretariat, and the Speaker take the complete observance and enforcement of the House Codes of Conduct and Rules seriously.
It concluded that the incident on that day involved violations of parliamentary decorum, weaknesses in rule enforcement, a lack of restraint, and administrative challenges.
The Speaker had directed the formation of the inquiry committee during the House session held on June 31st (Jestha 18) to investigate the incident.
What Did the Committee Find?
The parliamentary session on June 30th was postponed repeatedly due to scuffles between ruling and opposition MPs.
At the start of the session, after the Prime Minister raised his hand to request extra time, the Speaker called the session to order immediately; however, MPs Yubaraj Dulal from the Nepal Communist Party and Ain Bahadur Mahar from the CPN-UML protested, alleging violations of Rule 56 of the House Rules, 2026 (2083 BS).
Following the question-and-answer session with the Prime Minister, as some opposition MPs including Dhruv Rai were leaving the meeting, they expressed their dissent.
The report states that after 5 hours and 53 minutes into the session, all opposition MPs stood up from their seats to protest.
The Speaker had allowed Nepali Congress MP Basana Thapa to speak, but even after she spoke, the opposition MPs continued their protest by standing.
Six hours into the session, MPs from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party protested from their seats, while other opposition members encircled the Speaker’s podium, continuing chants and slogans.
Photo Source, Speaker Secretariat
Approximately 6 hours and 8 minutes into the session, a physical altercation occurred between some protesting opposition MPs and the decorum enforcers.
Despite the Speaker’s calls to maintain decorum, pushing and shoving persisted between the protesting MPs surrounding the podium and the enforcers.
During this, it was observed that one protesting MP attempted to climb onto the Speaker’s dais but was pulled down by the enforcers, the report notes.
Additionally, the enforcers formed a protective cordon around the Speaker to ensure his security, according to the report.
While instructing MPs to maintain decorum, Nepali Congress MP Santosh Subba was seen climbing on a table and showing a finger toward the Speaker. When he attempted to move toward the dais, the enforcers tried to prevent him, the report states.
“Meanwhile, CPN-UML MP Ringala Yadav was seen standing on the table, shouting slogans, and gesturing toward the decorum enforcers,” the report adds.
Shortly afterward, Yadav again attempted to move toward the Speaker’s dais from the table, raising his finger while verbally confronting the enforcers, the committee observed.
An MP from the Rastriya Swatantra Party, Khagendra Sunar, was seen trying to prevent the outbreak of violence. Around 6 hours and 13 minutes into the session, the committee also noticed someone throwing a microphone stand toward the ruling party side.
What Experts Say
Such uncivil conduct in parliament has occurred several times in the past as well.
Investigations have been made in some instances, and in others, the Speaker has suspended MPs.
Journalist Haribahadur Thapa, who has extensive experience covering parliamentary affairs and governance, argues that the repetition of such incidents is due to lack of formation of a code of conduct for MPs and absence of a monitoring committee as outlined in the rules of procedure.
“Had such a committee been formed, scrutiny would have been deeper. But how capable is an inquiry committee, led by parliamentary staff, in recommending disciplinary action against MPs?” he questioned.
“If the Speaker had headed the conduct monitoring committee, it would have been far more effective,” Thapa added.
Photo Source, RSS
In 2011 (2068 BS), then MP Sanjay Sah was fined 90,000 rupees by the parliament for breaking three microphones.
“The amount was deducted from his salary, but the court ruled against the punishment,” Thapa recalled, mentioning several incidents.
However, he said the Speaker should have engaged all parties for dialogue, but the current Speaker’s practice of suspending sessions for 15-minute intervals or calling MPs to attention has not been very effective.
“It would be better to seek solutions through all-party meetings or procedural consultation committees. But when everything is resolved within parliament, the Speaker appears to have some arrogance from the ruling party,” Thapa added.
Why Has the Conduct Monitoring Committee Not Been Formed?
According to Ekram Giri, spokesperson of the Federal Parliament Secretariat, the conduct monitoring committee has not been formed in at least the last three parliamentary terms.
“Forming such a committee requires office space and resources, and since it may not have routine tasks, there might be little drive to establish it,” he said.
“Nonetheless, it should be conceptualized as necessary in the rules of procedure,” the spokesperson added.
Experts note that since the committee mentioned in the House Rules is chaired by the Speaker, it would have been more stringent and effective.
