OPINION (Spotlight Weekly)

‘Committees Are Playing Extra-constitutional Roles’

— Kamal Koirala

Former Chairman of State Affairs Committee of House of Representatives KAMAL KOIRALA is one of the well known leader. Nephew of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Kamal Koirala was elected twice from the Morang constituency to the Lower House under UML's ticket. Koirala joined CPN-ML after the split. Koirala spoke to SPOTLIGHT on issues surrounding controversy over the role of Public Accounts Committee and other parliamentary committees. Excerpts:

How do you see the role of Public Accounts Committee and other committees of the House of Representatives?

Well, all committees are violating their basic principle and playing extra-constitutional roles. Actually, the role of Public Accounts Committee is to study unsettled accounts presented in the report of Auditor General and discuss how the money is being spent. But PAC is now working like an executive body issuing directives to the government. Other committees are also violating their roles. In United Kingdom and USA, the legislative committees deliver verdict on whether the public expenditures are spent in right manner. The roles of the committees are to support the process of legislation and hearing of constitutional appointments.

Do you mean the committees cannot issue directive to the government?

Yes. There is no authority for any parliamentary committee to dictate the government to do this or that. If House committees play such roles, it means the legislative is functioning like an executive. It is against the spirit of separation of power. Only after the completion of any process can the committees point out right or wrong. If PAC and other committees start activating while some process is going on, it will render the executive dysfunctional. The existing situation in the RNAC's issue is such that one aircraft company can successfully lobby by asking a couple of MPs to stall the process and they may stall it. How can the parliamentary committee like PAC interfere with the day to day administration of the government. Definitely they can ask the government to clarify after the completion of such agreements or activities.

But PAC members are saying that they are doing it to prevent any kind of irregularities?

I don't buy their arguments. How can they know that there will be irregularities when the agreements have not even been finalized. If we carefully look at the situation, it shows that there is someone who is feeding the information to them (PAC members). If this practice persists, mafia may win influence over the executive decision by misusing the committees. To take decision is the function of the executive and not legislative. Committee does not have the right to rule. This is a very strange phenomenon. If judiciary and legislature start interfering in the executive function, what will happen? The role of legislature is to formulate laws and the role of executive is to execute them. The judiciary may check whether it is functioning properly or not. If committees start to run the government, what will be the role of executive. The committees can say that the decision taken by the RNAC's board is wrong but it cannot obstruct the decision-making process. They cannot dictate their term.

Then, why are they doing this?

This is Nepal and they can do whatever they like. The Public Account Committee and other committees do not care about the legislative procedure. PAC is now concentrating on business deals and is bargaining with ruling Congress party. The opposition parties want to share the rewards by showing that the business cannot be done by pleasing the Congress alone. Instead of involving legislative process, the PAC is demanding share on resources. The members of parliament disappear from the parliament but they religiously attend the meeting of PAC. It seems that the committees have become more important to them than the full House. The situation is that neither parliament is functioning properly nor the committees. The committees can formulate the act by forcing the government for the appointment in any constitutional body. The committees are not serious on that. The situation now is that the opposition and ruling party are sharing the benefits.

How do you see their role?

The committees are active whenever the government tries to take certain decision. The decision may be right or wrong but it is the right of the government to take the decision. PAC may point out where the government has made mistakes. Even Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority does not have any right to stall the executive function. The situation is now such that one member of PAC raises question on certain issue and they ask for all the files related to the issue from the government. Mafia may use institution like PAC and CIAA to obstruct the whole process if it is not in their interest. Even parliament is misused by the people. Executive is also not functioning. Questions were raised over the appointment of Chairman of Human Rights Commission but no one spoke anything about other two members who were appointed under the party affiliation.

How do they function in other parts of the world?

The committees were formed in United Kingdom during the tenure of Margaret Thatcher. In USA, the senate approval is required for any appointments. The objective of the committee in UK and other countries is to support the process of legislative. No committee ever stalls the decision-making process of the executive at initial stage. Committees are not substitute to the government.