How do you confirm that the dissolution of Parliament is constitutional?
· The NCP was sent by the general public with a two-thirds majority. No matter how hard he tried, KP Oli got the majority in the last election. The constitution states that no no-confidence motion can be filed against the prime minister for two years. After that period, some aspiring leaders of our own party started making various moves and conspiracies. They surrounded the Prime Minister from all sides and started obstructing the government to work for the people. Those who could not live without posts and chairs tried to surround the Prime Minister by rushing to various power centers. Therefore, the Prime Minister decided to go to the people to prevent the country from falling into the hands of opportunists who are trying to destabilize the country again. The leader of the two-thirds party and the prime minister are right to say that they will go to the people. With one-third not in a position to form a government, the announcement by the Prime Minister to go to the polls for a new mandate is welcome.
The Prime Minister could not work due to non-cooperation of his own party leaders?
He has done a lot for the country and the people. If you look at the list of his work, there are remarkable works. But in the last period, two years later, the aspiring leaders tried to make the government fail. He brought that conspiracy to the notice of the people through the dissolution of the parliament.
But the constitution does not give the prime minister any right to dissolve the parliament, does he?
If the leader of the majority party says that he will go to the people, then how is it against the constitution? One-third cannot form a government. Then it was time to go to the people automatically. Some have tried to spread illusions for personal gain. If the party with a two-thirds majority says it will go to the people, it will not form a government with one-third.
But there is a provision in the constitution for the dissolution of the parliament if the four options are not fulfilled. How can the Prime Minister recommend the dissolution of the parliament automatically?
There are so many options to look at in essence. When two-thirds of the party decides to go to the people, any other option will eventually lead to the dissolution of parliament. Otherwise, in the meantime, the bad aspects of parliamentary practice begin to appear. For example, there are conspiracies to buy and sell MPs, split the party, and destabilize the country. This is the best option to save the country from instability. Congress and JSP cannot form a government, they do not have a majority.
Isn’t the Madhav-Prachanda group claiming the election symbol of the NCP Sun and real estate?
Anyone who doubts it claims that it is ours. We have no doubt that the election symbol Surya and the real estate of the NCP are ours. What do we claim for our own goods? Where KP is Oli, there is CPN, where the sun is the election symbol. No matter how much they claim, they will not get the goods of others. If Prachandaji has faith in his popularity, he should have dared to contest the election with a hammer and sickle and come to the House of Representatives. It is a shame for Prachanda to claim the Sun election symbol as his own. Another thing is that Madhav Nepal have left the party. After they left the party, they no longer had the CPN and the sun. So they should form another party now. Then we will see. Now everyone is watching where the public opinion and the wave of people are. In Madhes, some called Oli anti-Madhesh, but today the entire Madhes is in favor of KP Oli. Thousands of people are eager to make KP Oli the Prime Minister again.
Has the Election Commission been informed that the majority of central members are in favor of the Madhav-Prachanda group?
The central members who are in their favor are not elected, only the nominees. All of them have become central members with the signature of KP Oli. At present, there are more than 1,200 central members. If they get a majority beyond that, they will have two-thirds in the Election Commission.
Have the influential leaders of the then UML left with KP Oli?
Without KP Oli, it is difficult for the Madhav-Prachanda group to win the election. My challenge is to win the election without KP Oli. Leaders who are in the minds of the people are influential. Now the whole country is showing how influential KP Oli is. If they are just as influential, the election has been announced, show victory. Show that you have won the House of Representatives election in your constituency at least without the support of KP Oli.
Dozens of writ petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the dissolution of Parliament. What will happen to you if the Supreme Court reconstitutes Parliament?
First of all, I don’t want to comment on the case pending in the court. There is no question of re-establishment of parliament in any article of the constitution. It remains to be seen under which section the Supreme Court will reconstitute the parliament. Nowhere in the constitution have I read does it mention the restoration of parliament.
Does Prime Minister Oli’s group look weak in Province 2?
In Province 2, we are getting stronger. You can gauge how strong we are by looking at the wave of people in our programs. How many people come there to watch the programs of JSP, Congress and Madhav-Prachanda. However, people from village to village spontaneously participate in the programs in support of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. The people who vote are the people, not the leaders. The Prime Minister has given the people the right to make decisions again. In Province 2, there is now a wave of people in favor of Prime Minister Oli. Prime Minister KP Oli is the center of hope of the people. I had organized the program in Dhanusha on December 25. I had expected more than 1,500 participants, but there were more than 5,000 participants. The masses came spontaneously. This shows that people are observing those who do the right thing.
Are the appointments made by the government led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli according to the principle of proportional inclusion?
Appointments are all made through open competition. I myself had inquired before the Hon’ble Prime Minister about the proportional inclusion in the question of appointment, but the number was a little less. He simply said that there is open competition for any appointment. What to do if the subject matter experts do not participate in the appointment? The current appointments are being made by the meeting of the Council of Ministers from those who have come in competition. Whenever the government calls, what can the Prime Minister do if the relevant subject matter experts do not fill it? Another thing, for example, is the appointment of an ambassador, which is not a purely political appointment. An ambassador for any country must represent that country. For appointment in any body, one should be knowledgeable about that area.