 |
Kathmandu Wednesday June 06, 2001 Jestha 24, 2058.
|
Probe body suffers setback as UML leader pulls out
Move questionable, hints DPM
By Utpal Raj Misra
KATHMANDU, June 5 - In
yet another dramatic turn of events, the leader of the main opposition party Madhav Kumar
Nepal has withdrawn his name from the high level investigation committee constituted by
King Gyanendra yesterday, citing short-comings in its formation procedure.
Unconfirmed reports, meanwhile, said another top leader of
the CPN-UML could substitute Nepal in the probe committee.
The King, on Monday, evening had named a three-member
investigation committee under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadyaya to
probe the shootings inside the Royal Palace on June 1, which led to the untimely death of
at least 10 Royal Family members, including the late King Birendra and his entire family.
King Gyanendra had ordered the high-powered committee to
submit a finding within three days. Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament Taranath
Ranabhat and the leader of the main opposition CPN-UML Madhav Nepal were the other members
named in the committee.
But today, opposition leader Nepal announced that his party
had termed the procedure of the formation of the committee lacking in constitutional and
legal authority. A statement put out by him today said that the party’s standing
committee meeting had decided that "since the committee formed by the King was not in
consonance with the Constitution and law, and since it was not done in a transparent way,
the party cannot agree with the procedure of the formation of the investigation
committee."
Elaborating on the statement, KP Sharma Oli, an influential
leader and the member of the UML’s standing committee, said that the party could not
agree with the formation of the committee since "a) the decision was not recommended
by the Cabinet, and b) Constitutional clauses and sub clauses according to which the
committee was formed were not mentioned while naming the committee."
However, the Deputy Prime Minister Ram Chandra Poudel
categorically asserted that the King formed the committee on the advice of Prime Minister
Girija Prasad Koirala and was in consonance with the Constitution.
"The Prime Minister had made a statement on Saturday
saying that he would initiate a probe in the matter to bring out true facts. That
statement was made after a meeting with the Cabinet and other high dignitaries and
opposition leaders," said Poudel. "On the basis of that meeting where everybody
advised the Prime Minister that an investigation should be done, he advised His
Majesty."
Poudel also added that he believed that it was the best
possible formation of an investigation committee and that it should get its job done as
soon as possible and bring out the actual facts.
In clause 35(2) of the Constitution of Nepal 1990, it is
stated, " Except as otherwise expressly provided as to be exercised exclusively by
His Majesty or at His discretion or on the recommendation of any institution or official,
the powers of His Majesty under this Constitution shall be exercised upon the
recommendation and advice, and with the consent of the Council of Ministers. Such
recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the Prime Minister."
But Oli argues that the constitutional clauses and the
facts that the decision was taken by going through had to be mentioned while announcing
it.
Opposition leader Nepal’s withdrawal throws the
spanner in the investigation of the most tragic incident in Nepal’s recent history
ever. It also comes at a time when the entire nation is looking towards the investigation
committee and its report. As such, there are comments here that the UML may have committed
a political blunder by withdrawing from the committee on flimsy grounds, and that too, in
these tragic times.
"We are going through uncommon times and we have to
take everything according to the principle of fairness rather than looking at minor legal
technicalities," said Daman Nath Dhungana, former Speaker of the Parliament and a
prominent senior advocate. "I fail to understand why he has withdrawn from taking the
responsibility," he said.
Another lawyer, not wanting to be named, said, " At a
time when people and the opposition parties itself was demanding the actual facts and when
best choice of people were selected in terms of inquiry, the only answer would be that
opposition leader Nepal is trying to escape from the responsibility that he has been
given."
Other Stories
|
