In its essence, parliamentary hearing for key appointments is aimed at transparency and open government. But in Nepal successive hearing committees have acted merely as rubber-stamps, defeating their very purpose. Perhaps mindful of that, lawmakers from Nepal Communist Party (NCP) were eager to buck the trend by not confirming Deepak Raj Joshi as chief Justice. Certainly that was the popular thing to do given the public opinion, yet in doing so they betrayed the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If key appointments can be derailed by mere allegations, floodgates of similar allegations will be opened against all future nominees. The first issue in this saga is the failure of the hearing committees to use its power to investigate.On all allegations, the committee has the power to summon testimony and documents. No doubt, this will delay the confirmation process but, at the very least, it would do the right thing: prove or disprove the allegations. One of the things that seemed to upset NCP lawmakers was that chief justice nominee Joshi’s refusal to answer questions, and he had even called into question parliament’s competence. The committee could have compelled Joshi to testify, or it could have threatened to start the process of contempt of parliament. (Article 103 (7) of the Constitution has clear provision for contempt citation.) Not understanding the scope of one’s responsibility and power is big problem in Nepal. Of the many lawyer-turned politicians in the parliament no one seemed to be providing right counsel.
While Nepal has made efforts to adopt some of best features of other systems of government, it is unfortunate that same level of energy wasn’t put in implementing these ideas in our context. The 15-member joint Hearing Committee (12 members from House of Representatives and three from the National Assembly) clearly had the mandate to investigate matters. Article 17 of Parliamentary Hearing Committee Working Procedure, 2075 clearly says so. To carry out investigation the committee can seek assistance of any government entity.
It can also invite experts to give their opinion on the matters under discussion. There is no legal restriction that bars the committee from going even further than that. Even NCP leadership seemed willing to give the Hearing Committee a long leash; that’s unprecedented in a nascent democracy where party bosses don’t take kindly to subordinates not toeing the line. So this was the perfect opportunity to raise the bar and set a new precedent for ending business as usual.
If the Hearing Committee and other thematic committees are to be effective, the parliament needs to seriously expand its own capacity. There should be a separate research department within the secretariat to support the professional needs of members of parliament and committees.
Flawed vetting
The blame also goes to Judicial Council, Constitutional Council and the government for not instituting a vetting system for key appointments. If someone is so controversial, why nominate him and initiate a process that would embarrass the government and erode public trust in institutions? This clearly calls for a vetting process for all key appointments. Instead of ministers producing names from back pockets at the last minute, it should be part of advance planning put through a vetting process. With the ruling parties having such strong numbers in parliament, there is no longer an excuse for not putting a system in place.
Not confirming an appointment without fully investigating the allegations is as dangerous as confirming someone despite the allegations.
