Current face-off between the executive and the judiciary in Nepal will further erode the credibility of both institutions.
What happened?
The move to impeach the chief justice of Nepal’s Supreme Court, has triggered a new political crisis in Kathmandu.
Deputy PM and Nepali Congress leader resigned from the government after the impeachment motion signed by CPN (Maoist-Centre) and Nepali Congress, was moved.
On May 1 2017, the third largest constituent in the ruling coalition, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), withdrew its ministers.
Though the RPP has not withdrawn support to the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government, the events have weakened the coalition government.
Under Nepal’s constitution, a motion for impeachment moved by not less than one-fourth of the total membership of the House leads to the suspension of the person holding the constitutional position.
The notice will then be referred to Parliament’s Impeachment Committee, which will scrutinise the charges and make its recommendations to the House.
No time limit is specified for its final disposal.
Soon after Nepal went through radical political changes in 2006, its constitution was replaced by an interim one, requiring even sitting judges of the Supreme Court to take oath afresh.
A system of parliamentary hearings was introduced, but there were no structural checks to ensure the committee acted in a bipartisan manner.
In consequence, those hopeful of appointment as judges felt a need to please parties or leaders in the committee.
The same practice was followed in appointments to other constitutional bodies and ambassadorial positions.
Why this sudden turmoil?
At the root of the crisis is the politicisation of the judiciary, to which both the political parties and the judges have contributed.
The issue did not begin with present CJI, who took office as Nepal’s first woman CJ, and is unlikely to end with her exit.
The independence of the judiciary was compromised soon after the 2006 Constitution came into being and political parties started to influence appointments to the bench.
The wise principle that there must be separation of powers of the executive and the judiciary was ignored by both institutions.
In 2012, the then-CJ became PM of a government that included ministers from political parties.
In turn, the judiciary turned a blind eye to political activists, including legislators, seeking nomination as judges.
Earlier this year, the stand-off between the bar and the executive and judiciary had reached a flashpoint when over 300 lawyers, including senior office-bearers of the Nepal Bar Association, resigned to protest the appointment of 80 high court judges.
These appointees allegedly were nominees of the ruling parties, namely the CPN (Maoist-C) and the Nepali Congress.
Nepal’s transition from a monarchy to a republic has been chaotic.
The past decade has seen various stakeholders working at cross purposes in a bid to grab power at all costs, which has exposed the country’s ethnic and regional fault lines.
The failures of the political mainstream in nation-building could test the people’s faith in democracy itself.
