The dispute between UCPN(M), Congress, and UML regarding the government’s decision to forward the case of CA member Balkrishna Dhungel, who has been of convicted murderer and Supreme Court has announced a life sentence and seizure of all property, to the President for pardon did not last long. The Supreme Court’s stay order helped calm down the situation. The parties though they criticized the expansion of the cabinet did not intensify their opposition. Rather, there was an agreement among UCPN (M), Congress, and UML to take the peace and constitution-drafting process forward.

In the CA, a working group of the sub-committee for dispute resolution under the Constitutional Committee recommended that the provision of directly elected president and parliament-elected prime minister be put in the new constitution. Army Integration Special Committee (AISC) endorsed a package for army integration, voluntary retirement, and rehabilitation, and started the process of reclassifying the combatants in the cantonments.

Along with these developments in the peace process, the government started the procedure to amend the constitution to form the state restructuring commission instead of an experts panel. However, there was no agreement on the commission’s scope of work in and among the parties and CA members. The Janajati caucus in the CA proposed an amendment demanding formation of an experts panel which will not have the authority to affect the report of the commission.

UCPN (M) vice-chairperson Vaidya faction put forward a condition that the panel will not have the constitutional authority to reverse the report of the commission. The three parties agreed the panel will be authorised to work within the limits of the commission’s report, suggestions from the CA members, and notes of dissent. The Vaidya faction took the stand if the panel is to be formed, its scope of work should also be mentioned in the Interim Constitution, which affected the parliamentary meetings. Though the senior leaders committed to form the panel by amending the Constitution and there was agreement between them, it could not be implemented.

Janajati CA members from UML and UCPN (M) warned that challenging the committee report would be taken seriously. The dispute within UCPN (M) was more serious. The meeting of the parliamentary party could not take a stance on the constitution amendment nor issue a whip to its members. The senior leaders consulted the Janajati CA members to no avail. This prompted the senior leaders to come up with a new idea—“Withdrawal of amendment bill and formation of state restructuring commission”.

United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) also agreed to formation of state restructuring commission despite its earlier objection. The first clause of the agreement between UCPN (M), Congress, UML, and UDMF mentions that amendment bill will be withdrawn and state restructuring commission will be formed within three days. The next clause states that the commission will “take into account the report and suggestions of Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power, consider the discussions in the CA, and take recognition and capacity while making its suggestions”. Thus, the bill for amendment was withdrawn. Finally, the main three parties agreed to form the state restructuring commission as envisioned in the Interim Constitution 2007.

Major Developments