Submit your Article

At present, several vital bills languish in the Federal Parliament awaiting approval. In the lineup, there is a bill seeking to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering Act-2008, another aiming to reshape the Truth and Reconciliation Act, and a comprehensive bill to revise dozens of laws.

This parliamentary logjam underscores a larger issue of functional hindrance. But it does not stop there. The vision for Nepal's federal structures hinges on the formulation of pertinent laws, yet progress seems mired in stagnation. Altogether there are 25 crucial bills stuck in both houses of the Federal Parliament.

For a month now, the main opposition, CPN-UML, has obstructed the parliament proceedings demanding for a high-level investigation panel to look into the gold smuggling case from Tribhuvan International Airport. The ruling parties have refused to form such a panel, deepening the impasse.

The déjà vu of stalled parliamentary proceedings is not new. Over the years, Nepal's Parliament has become a pawn in the hands of a select few top leaders from major parties—CPN-UML, Nepali Congress, and CPN (Maoist Center). In this precarious power dynamic, ordinances have emerged as a crutch for lawmaking in the absence of parliamentary cooperation.

Critics decry Nepal's Parliament as a rubber stamp wielded by a handful of influential leaders. The casualty in this power play is the legislative process itself, casting a shadow over the primary function of Parliament. Only one citizenship-related bill and a handful of budget-related bills have crossed the parliamentary threshold since the general elections of December last year.

The parliamentary speaker's role, too, has been controversial in recent years. Past speakers Krishna Bahadur Mahara and Agni Sapkota faced accusations of partisan bias, foregoing impartiality. The strained relationship between former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Speaker Sapkota reached its zenith when the latter refused to present America's Millennium Corporation Challenge agreement in Parliament. Current Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire is also under scrutiny for favoring his party, UML, rather than playing the role of a non-partisan arbiter.

The level playing field within Parliament has tilted toward the gravitational pull of political parties. Everyday parliamentary proceedings now rest on the tripartite consensus among Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal of Maoist Center, Sher Bahadur Deuba of NC, and KP Sharma Oli of UML. Meanwhile, smaller parties have seen their influence marginalized.

Top-tier agreements made in Baluwatar among the leaders of these three major parties become binding for Parliament. The speaker's role in mitigating the parliamentary impasse has turned ineffectual.

The art of obstructing Parliament, it appears, has been perfected to a science. A recurrent tactic involves ransoming the legislative process only to agree to its resumption following opaque pacts sealed at Baluwatar. One striking instance revolves around UML's stranglehold on the House, catalyzed by Prime Minister Dahal's remarks concerning an Indian businessman interceding with New Delhi to make him premier. After days of deadlock, UML relented only when Dahal clarified his statements.

This hostage-taking of Parliament by a select few leaders has silenced the voices of lawmakers on critical national matters. The formation of high-level panels and other pressing issues remain stalled as lawmakers are denied their platform.

Experts insist on a lasting solution, suggesting that parties commit to a shared resolution.

Political analyst Geja Sharma Wagle calls for a need to break the cycle of parliament obstruction through commitment among parties to preserve the sanctity of Parliament as a platform for substantive discourse. He says Parliament should be a place for deliberation amidst disagreement.

Subas Nembang, former speaker and UML leader, contends that Nepal's constitution and parliamentary rules failed to anticipate such standstills. While obstruction is not expressly accounted for in legislative provisions, he defends his party’s move by citing a parliamentary precedent for the tactic. Nembang posits that while not explicitly codified, this system obliges the government to address opposition demands when effectively presented.

Daman Nath Dhungana, another former speaker, says the Constituent Assembly's efforts to issue a new constitution have inadvertently sowed the seeds of parliamentary dysfunction. The stranglehold of three dominant political players lives on, perpetuating an environment where political maneuvering takes precedence over governance.

The bad legacy continues, adds Dhungana, with current priorities seeming to center around preserving government, exemplified by Prime Minister Dahal's focus.

The stalemate does not solely impact the full House; it cascades down to the Parliamentary Committees as well. Regarded as mini parliaments, these committees are now relegated to the sidelines, lacking both leadership and a clear agenda. The challenge deepens as committee members grapple with a lack of expertise within their working domains.

The very foundation of democratic governance stands challenged by a recurring cycle of obstruction and partisan strife, which threatens to undermine the nation's progress. It is a disservice committed by the three major parties to the people.

A high-level committee is not necessary for investigating the 100-kg gold smuggling case and prosecuting the guilty notwithstanding the CPN-UML’s demand.

We have the obligation to discuss corruption cases in the Parliament, which is not happening as UML has been obstructing the House. If a high-level panel was formed to probe the Bhutanese refugee scam, we could have protected our leaders.

But we didn’t do that as we are committed to controlling corruption by bringing all suspects under probe and prosecuting the guilty. In the gold case also, police should be allowed to conduct a fair probe and book the guilty.

Parliament is a platform for the opposition to air public concerns, but UML is shying away from it. The government has opened files of the refugee scam, Lalita Niwas land-grab and the 100-kg gold case and even NC leaders are under probe, though the party is in the government. 

The author is general secretary of Nepali Congress 

Over a decade ago, Nepal embarked on an earnest mission to fortify journalistic safety and uphold press freedom. A spirited endeavor sought to erect a comprehensive nationwide framework safeguarding the integrity and security of those entrusted with the mantle of holding power accountable. Yet, despite fervent determination and resolute global support, the realization of this noble undertaking remains tantalizingly elusive, emblematic of the chasm between aspiration and realization.

This chronicle finds its genesis in 2012, when Nepal’s vision coalesced into the framework for a journalists’ safety mechanism. Years of meticulous labor culminated in late 2019, with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the custodian of fundamental rights, promulgating protocols harmonized with the tenets of the Human Rights Act of 2012. However, the path from conceptualization to actualization has been punctuated with complexities and challenges.

Despite the concerted support of international organizations, lending their intellectual and financial weight, concrete advancement remains a chimera. Underpinning the stipulated guidelines was a triumvirate of mechanisms, conceived not only to shield journalists but to uphold the bedrock of unbridled expression.

At the epicenter of this vision stands a steering committee, envisaged as the linchpin of the entire edifice. Chaired by a distinguished NHRC member, this committee convenes stakeholders from diverse realms, including the Nepal Bar Association, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Federation of Nepali Journalists, and the Nepal Police.

In 2021, the mantle of coordinating this pivotal committee was bestowed upon NHRC member Manoj Duwady. Yet, substantial progress remains an elusive quarry. Despite three meetings, the initiative languishes in its embryonic state. “Scarce resources, pivotal for the mechanism’s activation, are a critical constraint,” says Duwady.

Nestled within this overarching framework, the inception of a task force within NHRC was envisaged. However, an opaque veil shrouds the mechanics of these mechanisms, leaving stakeholders and the public grappling for clarity. Concurrently, the swift deployment of a rapid response unit, tasked with assuaging the predicaments of local-level journalists ensnared in challenges, remains more an abstract concept than a tangible reality. Regrettably, NHRC's vows remain stuck in the realm of verbal commitments, yet to materialize in the form of a functioning committee.

Laxman Datt Pant, a proponent of international media rights and chairperson of Media Action Nepal, leaves no room for equivocation in his censure of NHRC’s inertia. “The commission’s avowals to safeguard journalists and uphold the freedom of expression sound increasingly hollow,” he says. “Inaction not only corrodes the institution’s credibility but also underscores a palpable dearth of authentic commitment to the very ideals it professes.”

With a clarion call for action to supplant rhetoric, Pant implores NHRC to translate verbal declarations into palpable efforts, echoing the spirit of the ambitious UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

Having taken root in 2013, this initiative has garnered international solidarity, with prominent entities like UNESCO and stalwarts from the Nepal International Media Partnership providing vital technical counsel to NHRC.

In the face of NHRC’s assertions of constrained resources, a senior official acknowledges an intriguing absence of outreach to international channels for funding.

Ironically, despite multimillion-dollar investments by international entities, the journalist safety mechanism languishes in a state of inertia. Consequently, journalists grappling with danger at the grassroots level find themselves bereft of the prompt succor they direly require.

Bipul Pokhrel, the chairman of the Federation of Nepali Journalists, says that the operational blueprint of the steering committee remains an open question.

“Deliberations are underway to enhance the efficacy of these mechanisms,” he says. Emphasizing the imperative of inclusive stakeholder representation within the steering committee, Pokhrel underscores the significance of financial underpinning.

“With the mandate to safeguard journalists from tangible threats, financial support stands as a cornerstone. Thus, meticulous groundwork emerges as a decisive determinant in guiding the mechanism to realization.”

As Nepal’s chronicle spans over a decade, its odyssey to safeguard its journalistic guardians emerges as a narrative of soaring ideals tempered by intricate implementation. As stakeholders navigate this intricate terrain, the watchful gaze of the press, human rights advocates, and the global community remains riveted, poised for the transformative juncture when words transmute into resolute action.

The decision of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) to seek clarification over news published in Annapurna Post daily is an attack on freedom of speech and expression, experts have said. 

They are of the view that CAAN, a regulatory body of Nepal’s civil aviation sector, is not authorized to seek clarification on the issues related to news stories. Of late, Post and its sister publications had been publishing  a series of stories regarding the new rules of CAAN that are discouraging the aviation sector.  

Balkrishna Basnet, chairperson of Press Council Nepal, says it is the council’s jurisdiction to examine the authenticity of news, not CAAN’s. “The letter issued to Annapurna Media Network by CAAN seeking clarification about news stories is unacceptable to the media fraternity.”

There is a constitutional and legal provision enabling responses to media reports. If such responses are not published, individuals can lodge complaints with the Press Council Nepal. 

 “The Press Council will carefully examine and inquire into instances where the media’s published materials do not meet expectations,” says Basnet. 

Editorial freedom in media pertains to the autonomy of publishers in making decisions free from external interference. This encompasses editors’ independence to determine content and coverage. An integral facet of editorial independence is its role to act as a barrier against undue influence, be it from owners or external parties, when it comes to editorial choices and what gets published or broadcast. This becomes particularly relevant when media outlets publish content that may not align with advertisers’ preferences or owners’ viewpoints.

It is a well-known fact that Nepal’s geographical remoteness poses extreme challenges for accessing health services and transporting food. They have no choice but to rely on air services for these essential services. 

But CAAN has enforced a policy suspending air services in remote districts after 12 pm starting July 31. This decision has had serious repercussions in remote and mountainous regions of Nepal. Tragically, due to the absence of air services, four children in remote regions of Karnali province recently lost their lives. They could not get timely medical attention due to the new CAAN policy.

After Annapurna Post, a sister publication of ApEx, reported about the hardship faced by the people living in remote hinterlands of Nepal, the issue garnered significant attention. Media outlets, such as BBC, Kantipur, and Radio Nepal, also covered similar news stories, emphasizing the need for prompt government intervention to resume essential air services in remote regions of the country.

Despite appeals from the chief minister of Karnali province, the federal minister of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation, political leaders, and local representatives, CAAN Director General Pradeep Adhikari decided not to lift the air service restrictions. Instead, the CAAN decided to go against the media for exposing his misguided and callous decision.

The clarification letter states that AMN has repeatedly disseminated news, analyses, and comments that gravely undermine flight safety. The letter further points out that despite Capt Thapa’s role as the head of an airline company responsible for upholding flight safety, he seems to have misused his publishing rights through his media outlet, engaging in misleading and rumor-spreading activities. 

Senior advocate Bijay Gupta says that the news covered by the Annapurna Post was about the effects of flight suspension. “It’s what the media should do.”

These actions, as stated in the letter, conflict with the Nepal Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2053 BS and the associated regulations, requirements, manuals, and other standards outlined by the authority.

But experts maintain that while CAAN has the capacity to regulate airspace, it has no right to encroach on editorial freedom.

Bipul Pokharel, president of Federation of Nepalese Journalists, emphasizes that the media conveys information in alignment with their principles, benefiting from editorial independence and direction. “Individuals without relevant involvement should not become the focus of clarification or measures based on edited content,” he adds.

Clause (b) of section 7 in the Press Council Act of 2048 BS stipulates that the journalist code of conduct of 2073 BS, endorsed by the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, emphasizes the importance of upholding editorial freedom. According to this provision, the code establishes that editors bear ultimate responsibility and control over news collection, editing, production, presentation, and distribution. Aligned with the global principle of editorial independence, the code underscores that media outlets and journalists must have the freedom to gather, publish, and express information, opinions, and perspectives without external pressure or influence.

As pointed out by legal experts, Capt Thapa holds leadership roles within three distinct organizations, each governed by separate laws. Hence, it is inappropriate for CAAN to conflate Thapa’s roles and seek an explanation for news published in his newspaper while linking it to his involvement with Simrik Air. Capt Thapa’s roles in Simrik and Annapurna are separate, and experts believe that CAAN Director General Adhikari has committed a constitutional and legal misstep.

The authority to write and publish news and editorials rests with editors, not investors. If dissatisfied with news coverage, individuals or organizations concerned should approach the relevant journalist or editor to present a rebuttal, or file a complaint with the Press Council Nepal.

Simrik Air functions as a separate company. “In accordance with the Companies Act of 2063, individuals are legally permitted to establish a company to achieve objectives specified in the memorandum of association, either independently or collectively,” says senior lawyer Jagadish Dahal. Pursuant to the Companies Act, Capt Thapa assumed the position of chair for Simrik Air, he says that there is another distinct law that governs the selection of the Airline Operators Association's president. 

“As CAAN DG Adhikari has committed a series of unconstitutional moves, he should step down from the post on an ethical ground,” says Dahal. “According to the Publication and Printing Act, Capt Thapa undertook the role of the AMN chair as a mere investor, meaning he does not exert editorial control over published content.” 

Dahal adds CAAN cannot address the chairperson of different organizations in the same way, though the individual may be the same. “There is no legal provision for CAAN to interfere.”

The FNJ has also warned the Civil Aviation Authority to immediately withdraw the clarification sought over the news published in the Annapurna Post daily. The FNJ concluded that asking for clarification in an illegal way is objectionable and against the constitutional concept of press freedom, reads a letter issued by FNJ General Secretary Roshan Puri on Aug 21.

The federation has also warned the CAAN to withdraw the clarification asked in an illegal way by respecting the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to expression and press freedom.