Parties Clash Over Rana Magar’s Ouster

The ruling and opposition parties have clashed in the federal parliament over Deputy Speaker Indira Rana Magar's ouster. A letter written about 19 months ago to the American mission in Kathmandu requesting visas for some “irrelevant people” whom Rana Magar intended to take to the United States for a UN-sponsored programme sparked outrage in the Lower House of Parliament, prompting two major coalition partners, the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), to demand her resignation. The ruling parties accused the Deputy Speaker of wrongly seeking American visas for unrelated people, which they termed an act that defiled the dignity of her office, and asked her to pave the way by resigning, or they would remove her through the parliamentary procedure.

Some members of the ruling alliance even accused her of engaging in an act that was tantamount to human trafficking after it was found that the people she was allegedly taking to New York were utterly unconnected to the women's programme she was scheduled to attend. Many stated that the five persons would not have returned to Kathmandu, had they been granted a visa to enter America. As American embassy rejected granting visa to them, Rana Magar was saved from facing humiliation and public outrage back home.

Mistake 

Although the Deputy Speaker admitted to writing the letter, she claimed that her actions were motivated by "compassion" and were meant to assist attendance at a United Nations function. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the party on whose ticket she was nominated as a lawmaker, too accepted that the Deputy Speaker committed a mistake by writing the letter to the American embassy requesting visas for unrelated individuals. Rana Magar’s explanation in her defence failed to ease the concerns within the ruling coalition.

Meanwhile, parties on opposition bench have come out to defend Rana Magar, arguing that sending the letter to an embassy was not a serious mistake warranting resignation or forceful ouster. They warned they would fail the ruling coalition's attempt to depose her and would even take to the streets if the ruling parties continued to pressurise her for her ouster. Despite harbouring conflicting ideologies, opposition parties including the RSP, the CPN- Maoist Centre, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and some independent legislators have remained on the same page in opposing the ruling coalition.

With opposition parties coming forward to defend the Deputy Speaker, the requirement for the ruling parties to oust her appears difficult, if not impossible. The government partners need the signatures of 184 members in the 275-member house to garner the two-thirds majority to successfully oust Rana Magar through a parliamentary procedure or the no-confidence motion. At present, they are short of a few lawmakers to achieve the goal of deposing her.

It is worthwhile to note that while ruling partners highlight the issues of Rana Magar's moral quandary and violation of the dignity of a constitutional body, it is vital to recognise that the ruling partners’ efforts to remove her are more than just an ethical issue. Many believe Rana Magar's likely removal reflects an issue of shifting majority inside the five-member Constitutional Council, where the ruling alliance is currently in the minority. Since the Council is crucial in recommending appointments to key constitutional offices, its composition is presently a bone of contention.

At present, the Council consists of three members from opposition sides and two from the ruling coalition, specifically from the UML. Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, the main opposition leader, chairman of the National Assembly Narayan Dahal, and Deputy Speaker Rana Magar form the majority for the opposition. With two members, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire, the ruling partners are in the minority.

Some see the apparent attempts to remove the Deputy Speaker as part of a design to shift the balance of power in the Council towards the ruling coalition. However, leaders from the UML rejected this contention. Both the NC and UML argued that the Deputy Speaker’s issue is now related to the parliament and not to their parties, and it is up to the parliament and lawmakers to decide on Rana Magar’s fate.

The situation surrounding the Rana Magar case raises major questions regarding parliamentary process and political retribution. While Article 91 of Nepal's Constitution allows for the dismissal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker with a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, this provision is intended action against serious misconduct by those holding constitutional positions and should not be exploited for political gamesmanship or exacting revenge. What precedent will be created for future constitutional officeholders if the Deputy Speaker is removed through a resolution of no confidence? According to many who support opposition parties, while Rana Magar's actions are questionable from an ethical point of view, they may not justify her removal from office through a censure motion.

Furthermore, if any moral or ethical error, no matter how minor, is sufficient for impeaching elected individuals, the country's political institutions may become fundamentally unstable, with leaders always under threat of removal. In this light, the case of Rana Magar poses as a cautionary point, experts said.

Accountability 

Another important point to remember is that political leaders, especially those in positions of significant influence, such as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, must be held accountable if any action on her/his part goes against her/his constitutional responsibility that demands a high moral standard and political neutrality. Rana Magar's involvement in seeking visas for unrelated individuals calls into question her moral clarity and impartiality, as it has somewhat damaged people’s trust in the office she holds. Here, efforts made for her resignation on her ethical grounds may be justified.

Finally, Deputy Speaker Rana Magar's case demonstrates the significance of maintaining a balance between responsibility and political influence. While the issue of her resignation remains unresolved, any decision made by the House of Representatives must be motivated towards preserving the integrity of public offices.

(Upadhyay is a former managing editor of this daily.)