Law Minister Defends Ordinances Amidst Controversy

Kathmandu. Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam has presented 'misleading claims' in defense of the ordinances brought by the government. In a video message released on Sunday, she claimed that ordinances brought by previous governments were never presented in parliament.

She said, 'In the past, governments brought ordinances, and after their self-interest was fulfilled, they were abolished without being presented in parliament. Therefore, there has been mistrust and criticism of ordinances, but the context this time is quite different. This government wants to work at a fast pace. In some areas, due to lack of law and ambiguity, it is difficult to proceed with work. We have brought ordinances because laws are needed to remove such legal obstacles and make quick decisions.'

The current government has nearly a two-thirds majority in parliament. Therefore, Minister Gautam claimed that there is no situation where anything needs to be hidden or done secretly behind the scenes. 'This ordinance has not been brought to fulfill any hidden agenda, it is only to speed up work and make the government effective,' she said.

She argued that it can take at least three to four months to enact laws of a general nature, and the government had to bring ordinances to work quickly. She insisted that all ordinances issued by the President should be presented in parliament.

The claim made by Minister Gautam that previous governments brought ordinances and never presented them in parliament does not appear to be true.

However, it is true that some ordinances have been controversial in the past, as stated by Minister Gautam. For example, the ordinance related to the Constitutional Council and the ordinance related to political parties, brought by then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in 2077 BS, became controversial.

'Why is an ordinance needed?' Law Minister explains with video

At that time, the ordinance became controversial when Oli dissolved parliament, issued ordinances, and appointed 52 officials. However, Minister Gautam's claim that governments in the past brought ordinances and never presented them in parliament is not true.
Out of the 6 ordinances issued in Magh and फागुन of 2081 BS, 5 have been passed as permanent laws through replacement bills by the parliament. The ordinance to amend some Nepal Acts related to promoting good governance and public service delivery, 2081 BS, has been passed by parliament and become an act.

The ordinance to amend some Nepal Acts related to cooperatives, 2081 BS, was brought to solve cooperative problems and was presented in parliament. The ordinance on Financial Procedures and Fiscal Responsibility (First Amendment) 2081 BS, the Privatization (First Amendment) Ordinance 2081 BS, and the ordinance to amend some Nepal Acts related to improving the economic and business environment and promoting investment, 2081 BS, were presented in parliament.

Similarly, from 2074 BS to 2079 BS, 49 ordinances were issued. According to the report of the Parliament Secretariat, only 17 of these ordinances were passed by parliament and became acts. The ordinance on Acid and Other Chemical Substances (Regulation), 2078 BS, has been passed by this parliament and has become an act.

Similarly, the ordinance on Health Workers and Health Institutions Security (First Amendment) 2079 BS, the ordinance to amend some acts against sexual violence 2078 BS, the ordinance to amend some acts on criminal offenses and criminal procedure 2078 BS, and the ordinance on Drugs (Third Amendment) have been presented in parliament.

Similarly, the Railway Ordinance 2078 BS was issued repeatedly and finally passed by parliament in 2079 BS.

As per constitutional obligation, previous governments used to present all ordinances in parliament, but some controversial ordinances were rejected, while some became inactive as they were not passed by both houses of parliament within 60 days.

According to Article 114 (2) (a) of the Constitution, an ordinance must be presented in both houses of the Federal Parliament. If the parliament does not accept it, such an ordinance automatically becomes inactive.

Some of the ordinances brought now are also unlikely to be passed. This is because the aforementioned article of the constitution mandates that such ordinances must be passed by both houses of parliament. However, with the ruling party RSP having zero presence in the National Assembly and opposition parties being in protest, these ordinances are unlikely to be passed.

The government, which called and then postponed the parliamentary session, had recommended 8 ordinances, 6 of which have already been issued by the President, while 2 are still under study at the President's Office.