- Prime Minister Balen Shah’s appointment and oath ceremony are scheduled for upcoming Friday.
- The new government is reportedly planning to review various appointments made by the previous administration.
- The Rastriya Swatantra Party (Raswap) is currently only discussing appointed officials and preparing for the new government’s facilitation process.
- There is a possibility of revisiting both constitutional and political appointments, including the chief commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and judicial appointments.
March 23, Kathmandu — The appointment and subsequent oath-taking ceremony of the proposed Prime Minister Balen Shah are set for this Friday. Following this, the newly formed government is expected to re-evaluate appointments made by the previous administration. It is already certain that the government will soon begin reviewing various appointments.
Kavindra Burlakoti, General Secretary of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, stated that discussions are limited to officials who were appointed directly. According to him, talks have begun on facilitating those directly appointed officials and individuals once the new government is in place.
“It is considered better to facilitate individuals and officials who were appointed not on merit or competence but rather through political influence,” Burlakoti said. “This matter will be addressed by the incoming government. Our view is that it is appropriate to clear the path for those directly appointed officials during the formation of the new government.”
From Constitutional to Political Appointments
Appointments to government positions range from constitutional to political in nature, with some being of general administrative character. Raswap leaders have yet to clarify how they intend to tackle each type of appointment.
However, they argue that those who secured political appointments ought to demonstrate ethical conduct and facilitate a government that has received a large public mandate.
The President and Vice President are constitutional appointments, and Raswap leaders confirmed that no discussions about these posts have taken place during their internal meetings.
Apart from these, appointments within various constitutional bodies are under consideration, with particular attention given to the chief commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Prem Kumar Rai, and other commissioners.
“On one hand, there are appointments made during the tenure of former Prime Minister KP Oli; on the other, concerns about political bias affecting the CIAA’s work are being debated,” a Raswap leader shared. “However, no decisions have been finalized on what actions to take.”
Some Raswap leaders have also initiated discussions on judicial appointments in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Supreme Court judges can only be removed through impeachment, while High Court judges may be dismissed by the Chief Justice upon recommendation from the Judicial Council if their performance or conduct is questioned.
Although the appointment and oversight of judges by the Judicial Council are constitutionally mandated, in practice these processes have political implications.
One council member is appointed on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, while the other is selected based on the Bar Association’s recommendation; both members cannot be removed without impeachment.
During KP Oli’s premiership, 52 constitutional office holders were appointed in two phases. Many have since retired while others remain in their positions.
Except where officials have resigned on the government’s request, removal without impeachment is not possible.
For impeachment, the federal parliament must pass a two-thirds majority resolution supported by evidence proving misconduct relevant to the office. Prior to this, the impeachment recommendation committee must study the proposal and gather evidence.
From CIAA to Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Officials serving in all constitutional commissions—including the CIAA, Public Service Commission, Election Commission, and Finance Commission—can only be removed through impeachment proceedings.
The government can only request their resignation but cannot unilaterally remove them. To initiate impeachment, at least 25% of parliamentarians must submit a proposal with allegations and supporting evidence.
Another important appointment is that of ambassadors. While the government has the authority to recall ambassadors when necessary, a recent Supreme Court ruling temporarily halted government attempts to do so.
Appointments of officials in various regulatory bodies are also governed by specific procedures; removing some of these officials requires a formal process. For example, governors can only be dismissed upon recommendation by a committee led by a former High Court Chief Justice.
Officials in bodies such as the Press Council, Medical Council, Medical Education Commission, and Film Development Board are appointed through defined procedures.
Unless concrete faults are found in their work, initiating removal processes is difficult.
The two transitional justice commissions are also subject to this framework, with victims demanding removal of certain officials and submitting petitions to relevant authorities.
The previous government established land commissions in all districts and appointed officials accordingly. Although Prime Minister Sushila Karki decided to dissolve the land commission, the process is currently stalled due to an interim order from a writ petition filed by commission officials.
Increased Instability in Public Institutions
There are currently 45 public institutions operating across industrial, commercial, service, social, public welfare, and financial sectors. To make appointments in these institutions competitive, a Public Institution Management Board was established under former Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai.
The order forming the Public Institution Management Board was published in the government gazette on February 5, 2013. This board was intended to bring transparency and competitiveness to the appointments of chief executive officers, chairpersons, and directors of public institutions, but political parties have often made appointments favoring their interests.
University appointments frequently attract controversy. Positions such as vice chancellor, rector, and registrar are often allocated based on party quotas. There are currently 23 central and regional universities.
Political parties leading the government have shown interest in university appointments. Primarily, universities including Tribhuvan University, Pokhara University, Purbanchal University, and Nepal Sanskrit University have been alleged to appoint officials through partisan allocations, often placing affiliated faculty members in administrative roles.
Raswap spokesperson Manish Jha expressed a desire for facilitating individuals appointed through nepotism or fraternities but noted that this requires the new government to be in place and functioning.
Regarding political appointments, he said, “The party formulates political stances, the government makes decisions, and these decisions will be addressed once the government is formed.”
It’s Not as Easy as It Seems
Hari Upreti, an expert in administrative law and senior advocate, noted that although a government with a two-thirds majority can form a favorable team, procedural challenges may arise in some cases.
“It is easy to decide to remove someone, but difficult for those being removed. If they challenge removal in court and get an interim order, it will create obstacles for the government,” he remarked wryly. “Thus, it is important to consider procedural matters when removing officials.”
Apart from various constitutional appointments, other appointments made by the cabinet are political in nature, and those holding such positions have legitimate expectations. It’s difficult to remove someone unless wrongdoing is proven.
“Even removal requires forming investigative committees and sometimes thorough procedural inquiries,” Upreti stated. “If the government unilaterally removes someone and that person obtains an interim order from the court to reinstate, it sends a signal of failure for the administration. Therefore, caution is necessary.”
Good Governance Series—
