Speaker should correct himself at the point where he messed up: Pradeep Gyawali

Main opposition CPN-UML has been obstructing the House of Representatives (HoR) since the new Session began on September 8 asking Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota to take immediate action against 14 lawmakers whom the party sacked on August 18. 

UML sticks to its ‘bottom line’ that the Speaker should correct himself at the point where he made ‘the blunder’. 

Following the main opposition’s House obstruction for three meetings in a row, Speaker Sapkota called an all-party meeting on Sunday in a bid to resolve the House stalemate. However,  UML boycotted the meeting. UML Spokesperson Pradeep Gyawali shared that the party responded to the Speaker through a letter. 

Here is a brief conversation with leader Gyawali: 

You have been obstructing House for the last few days, what actually is your demand? 

Our main demand is: Speaker (Agni Prasad Sapkota) should publish a notice of dismissal of 14 sacked lawmakers. He has been playing dual roles. He set a kind of precedent during the case of Sarita Giri and next while dismissing four Maoist MPs including Top Bahadur Rayamajhi. 

He should not have stood in favor of the party split. 

UML boycotted the all-party meeting called by Speaker. What sort of message is the main opposition trying to convey? 

We wrote to him [Speaker Sapkota] asking either to publish a notice of dismissal of those lawmakers or to facilitate the further procedure. He should be a common leader in the House. How can we be assured of the fact that he would act in an unbiased manner in the upcoming days? 

How long will you continue House obstruction? Or are you going for an impeachment? 

We are not thinking about impeachment. We consider that the government and Speaker himself should be sincere on the issue. If he is thinking of operating House proceedings without opposition, we don’t have anything to say. 

We are the largest party in the House. We are 1.5 times bigger than his mother party --- CPN (Maoist Center). He should have a common sense that House proceedings could not move smoothly without taking the confidence of this party (UML). However, he seems to be focused on avoiding opposition and moving ahead. 

Doesn’t it mean that the Speaker is flexible toward opposition as he called the all-party meeting? 

I don’t think so. He should have consulted before the House season began. The situation was not usual. He was aware of that. The government introduced the ordinance a day after the House session was prorogued. Therefore, he should have thought about the opposition side. The current situation is a result of his own activities. 

I also recall those days the former speakers used to call the potential parties on a daily basis though parliament was prorogued for 57 days. Speaker attempted to win the opposition's confidence during the Lauda scam. 

Does it mean you are seeking his resignation due to a trust deficit? 

Let’s wait and see how things go. We should have been convinced if he had told us about the reality and his obligation (if any). However, he made attempts to proceed unilaterally.

Is it necessary to seek the dismissal of 14 MPs though the Madhav Nepal faction got a new party registered with the Election Commission (EC)? 

It is clear that everything was settled systematically. Supreme Court said the parties couldn’t impose whips. Speaker put the party’s [UML] letter on hold. Election Commission took the decision hurriedly. It is to be noted that the same body [EC] took 45 days in a similar case.

Let’s forget other things. Our prime concern is: Why doesn't the Speaker take immediate action though he could not wait for more than 24 hours in a similar case?

How long will you constitute obstruction? What are other alternatives for the UM if the Speaker fails to dismiss 14 lawmakers? 

Nothing much for now. We have not made further decisions in this regard. 

However, the ruling parties blame you for abstaining from the dialogue.  

It doesn't mean we did not respond to them. We rather sent a letter to them.