As crises mount, Nepal’s parliamentary committees struggle to hold the government to account

Nepal's parliamentary committees, constitutionally mandated to provide oversight of the executive branch, are increasingly failing in their duties, as evidenced by a recent meeting of the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee. The committee convened to discuss international concerns about potential government pressure on Supreme Court justices to resign under threat of impeachment.

Instead of launching an independent inquiry into these serious allegations, the committee spent over four hours debating the motives of the international human rights organizations, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and Human Rights Watch, that issued the joint statement. The committee controversially decided to demand clarification from these organizations, a move widely criticized by civil society, legal experts, and constitutional observers.

Critics contend that the committee effectively transformed into a shield for the government, abdicating its primary responsibility to hold state organs accountable. "The fundamental purpose of a parliamentary committee is to hold state organs accountable to the people," stated parliamentarian Amaresh Kumar Singh. "It is completely outside the mandate of any parliamentary committee to debate statements made by non-state actors."

“

The fundamental purpose of a parliamentary committee is to hold state organs accountable to the people.

Concerns are mounting that most of the 12 standing committees in the House of Representatives are struggling to fulfill their oversight roles, facing accusations of inaction, executive subservience, and a failure to address public grievances. The political composition of these committees further compromises their independence, with 11 chaired by members of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party and only one, the Public Accounts Committee, led by the main opposition Nepali Congress.

Adding to the paralysis, the government has introduced only 12 bills in the lower house, with just two undergoing detailed clause-by-clause discussions in committees. The remaining ten bills remain idle, highlighting the broader issue of legislative stagnation and the committees' inability to effectively scrutinize government actions or advance public interest.

“

It is completely outside the mandate of any parliamentary committee to debate statements made by non-state actors. If an ambassador makes a public comment tomorrow, does that mean the International Relations Committee should summon the diplomat for a cross-examination?