Kathmandu, Nepal, January 3, 2021: The nationwide protest launched by different political parties threatening the Supreme Court (SC) to reinstate the dissolve House of Representatives (HoR) and the statement of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli over the same issue that is already with the court of law has raised serious question marks over the commitment on independent judiciary as envisaged by the constitution.
Political parties including the breakaway faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and the main opposition Nepali Congress (NC) has been intensifying protest against the government’s decision to dissolve the parliament at the time when the Supreme Court (SC) is set to resume the hearing even calling amicus curiae. Other fringe political parties and different groups have also been launching protests against the decision to dissolve the parliament.
After a preliminary hearing made earlier last week, a constitutional bench at the apex court has scheduled to conduct a hearing on the writ petitions on Wednesday. Different 11 writ petitions had been filed at the SC against the decision of Prime Minister Oli to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) on December 20 demanding reinstatement.
Following the dissolution of the parliament, not only the leaders from the different political parties but also the Prime Minister Oli has been constantly speaking on a matter that is already with the court of law raising serious question marks even over their commitment on independence of judiciary.
Some leaders of the opposing political parties have not only been launching protests demanding reinstatement of the dissolve house but also raising question marks over the motive and intention over the constitutional bench formed at the SC to hear the writ petitions filed challenging the government’s decision to dissolve the House.
Prime Minister Oli has even argued that the decision to dissolve the house was a political move and that it does not warrant a judicial review. Prime Minister Oli has not only been delivering such statements but mentioned so while furnishing his explanation in response to a show cause notice issued by the SC on December 25 over his decision to dissolve the parliament.
As these acts and activities seem to have intended to influence the court decision, country’s judicial system would be a mockery if the SC failed to uphold the constitutional provisions in respect to the constitutionalism, rule of law and democracy by influencing the wrangling sides, the observers have said. Since the court is going hearing over the case, such acts should not have made from any side with the motive to influence the court decision, the independent observers have said.
