Concerns Raised Over Appointment of PM's Advisor to Lead Constitution Amendment Task Force

Kathmandu. The government led by Balen Shah has formally begun groundwork for constitutional amendment. However, stakeholders have expressed concern that individuals were chosen in a 'casual' manner for such a serious and sensitive matter as constitutional amendment.

They argue that the process for such a serious issue should not be led by someone lacking expertise in law or representation in the parliament. They suspect whether the entire issue of constitutional amendment is being deliberately sidelined.

The cabinet meeting held on Monday, Chaitra 16, decided to form a working group to prepare a 'Constitution Amendment Discussion Paper' under the leadership of the Prime Minister's Chief Political Advisor, Asim Shah. The government decided that representatives from political parties represented in the parliament would participate in this working group and move the process forward.

Shah was elected under the proportional representation system from Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in the 2079 House of Representatives election. He has also been involved in making films and documentaries. Furthermore, Shah had advocated for giving the King a chance to reform about six years ago, chanting 'King come, save the nation.' A status he posted on social media at that time is currently going viral.

Government Spokesperson and Minister for Education, Sasmrit Pokhrel, stated that the task force led by Shah will prepare the 'Discussion Paper' for constitutional amendment based on national consensus after necessary groundwork.

"The task force, chaired by the Prime Minister's Political Advisor, will include representatives from all parties represented in the parliament," Minister Pokhrel said. "The discussion paper for constitutional amendment will be prepared based on national consensus."

Constitutional and legal experts have commented that Prime Minister Balen Shah's decision to entrust the constitutional amendment task force to a trusted aide from his secretariat, rather than individuals with a background in constitutional law, suggests an attempt to limit authority within his own circle and make a mockery of the constitution itself.

Khimlal Devkota, a leader of the CPN (UML), stated that it is unclear whether the task force led by Shah is for the government's internal groundwork or for actual constitutional amendment.

"It is one thing to form it for the government's internal homework. But if the expectation is to amend the constitution through the representation of all parties, then a task force of that caliber is needed," Devkota said.

Nepali Congress Co-General Secretary Yogendra Chaudhary stated that the party has not yet received official information regarding the task force from the government and will make an appropriate decision once it does.

"We have not received official information about the task force; if we do, the party will sit with the party president and make an appropriate decision," Chaudhary said.

Constitutional expert Bhimarjun Acharya commented that the government's decision regarding the constitutional amendment mocks the very values and principles of the constitution. "This decision shows that the current government, the constitutional system, constitutional morality, and constitutional values and principles are not sensitive or serious about it," Acharya told Ratopati. "It appears that there is an attempt to divert attention from such a complex and serious issue related to constitutional reform or the constitution itself."

Acharya expressed concern that the government's style, in general, poses a serious threat not only to the current constitution but also to the future.

Anjita Khanal, former Secretary-General of the Nepal Bar Association, the umbrella organization for lawyers, stated that constitutional amendment is not a matter to be taken lightly or based on arrogance, and thus requires seriousness.

"The constitution should be amended according to the aspirations of the people and the needs of the country," Khanal said. "This is not something to be done based on arrogance or whims."

She suggested that it seems the government is not taking the matter seriously, either due to lack of understanding or fear that it might go beyond their control, by forming a task force chaired by the Prime Minister's advisor.

CPN-UML leader Pradeep Gyawali stated that he perceives the government and ruling parties to have understood the issue of constitutional amendment in an extremely casual manner.

"It seems the ruling parties or the government consider the issue of constitutional amendment as extremely ordinary," said former Minister Gyawali. "Prior consultation was necessary regarding which parties would sit in a task force formed this way, and that does not appear to have been done."

He added that the level of the person leading or heading such a sensitive issue is also important.

"If it had been led by former constitution drafters or subject matter experts, its dignity would have been maintained; that work does not seem to have been done," Gyawali told Ratopati. "Rather, it appears the government has raised this issue in a very casual manner."

Leader Gyawali stated that since formal information has not been received, the party will make a formal and institutional decision once it arrives.

Former Attorney General Raman Kumar Shrestha viewed the RSP-led government moving forward with the constitutional amendment process positively, but deemed the selection of the individual inappropriate.

"Initiating the process is right, but the main question is how much work that task force will accomplish," Shrestha said. "If the old parties do not agree to participate in the task force led by the appointed person, amendment will not happen."

Shrestha noted that if the task force were led by a subject matter expert, it would be universally acceptable and signal that the government is 'serious'.

Former Law Minister Nilambar Acharya, who is also a legal expert, reacted that the task force formed to prepare the discussion paper for constitutional amendment was not at the level commensurate with the seriousness of the subject matter.

"Whatever decision the government made for constitutional amendment, the task force was not at the level required by the seriousness of the issue and the need to incorporate the views of all sides," Acharya stated.

Former National Assembly member and legal expert Radheshyam Adhikari suggested that if the intention is truly to amend the constitution, an 'Advisory Committee' should be formed that is agreeable to all.

He suggested that this committee could be tasked with identifying which parts of the current constitution need to be changed, and only the proposals passed through the due process would be incorporated into the constitution, while those not passed would remain as they are. However, he noted that it is awkward when the government first forms a task force under someone's chairmanship and then expects other parties to join.

• Concern Rises Over Future Danger: Bhimarjun Acharya, Constitutional Expert

This is a mockery of the values and principles of the constitution. This decision shows that the current government, the constitutional system, constitutional morality, and constitutional values and principles are not sensitive or serious about it. It appears there is an attempt to divert attention from such a complex and serious issue related to constitutional reform or the constitution itself. Overall, this style raises concerns about a serious threat not only to this constitution but also to the future.

• Constitutional Amendment is Not a Light Matter: Anjita Khanal

As a student of law, I understand that constitutional amendment is a very serious and sensitive matter. Therefore, in my view, it would have been better if the task force to move forward with constitutional amendment had been formed under the leadership of someone with legal expertise within the parliament. However, it seems they thought that having the Prime Minister's advisor chairing it would make it easier to stay within the PM's line and facilitate discussions politically. But there are many legal experts in the parliament; if it had been led by one of them, or even if brought from outside, having an expert lead would have been practical, smooth, and better.

The person leading the preparation of the discussion paper now is not an expert in the constitution or law, only the Prime Minister's advisor.

This is by no means a light matter. Even the previous government with nearly a two-thirds majority from UML-Congress had spoken of amending the constitution but did not do so. The constitution should be amended according to the aspirations of the people and the needs of the country. This is not something to be done based on arrogance. It seems it is not being taken seriously, either due to lack of understanding or fear that it might go beyond control.

• Problems Arise If Old Parties Do Not Agree: Raman Kumar Shrestha

There is a provision for reviewing the constitution every ten years. In the past, the UML-Congress also agreed on this matter when forming the government. The Maoists have also spoken about it. Now, it is natural for the RSP-led government to move the process forward, but the question is how much work the formed task force will accomplish. If the old parties refuse to sit in the task force led by the appointed person, nothing will happen.

If it had been led by a subject matter expert, it would have been universally acceptable and appeared serious. Looking at the initiation of other works, one might think the government is trying to do many good things, but it seems that sufficient attention has not been paid to an issue as significant as constitutional amendment.

'Advisory Committee' Should Be Formed: Radheshyam Adhikari

It is difficult to say that this task force will solve the problem. Previously, the Congress-UML led government also said they would amend the constitution. At that time, I had mentioned that the task force formed by the government would make other parties uncomfortable. The government cannot present its views and expect others to align with those views.

Rather, if an amendment is to be made, my opinion, which I also expressed at that time, is that an 'Advisory Committee' should be formed that is agreeable to everyone, and I maintain that opinion now.

That committee could be tasked with specifying which issues in the current constitution need to be changed, and the proposals it brings forward could be incorporated into the constitution if passed through the process, while unpassed issues would remain as they are. However, it is awkward when the government first announces a task force under someone's chairmanship and then expects other parties to join.