Kathmandu May 29 : The day before the budget was brought from the ordinance, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli addressed a televised address. In his address, he presented his demands on the dissolution of the parliament on December 20, the reinstatement by the Supreme Court, the split of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), the political crisis in between and the dissolution of the parliament again.

Prime Minister Oli, who is also the chairman of the CPN-UML, has the same statement: “Wherever I stand, that is right.” But the claims made by him during the speech are not compatible with each other.

1. Parliament was dissolved on December 20 after the House of Representatives was made inactive due to the ambitions, frustrations and interests of a limited number of people. It is a fact that there was a dispute in the former Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). A majority of the party had leveled serious allegations against party chairman and prime minister Oli. Oli, who dissolved the parliament to avoid the crisis in the party, has blamed the House of Representatives.
2. According to the constitutional provision that a parliamentary session should be convened within six months, the session should have started within 17 January. His advisers and close leaders were saying there was a constitutional obligation to convene the convention. But Oli dissolved parliament. But Prime Minister Oli suddenly decided to dissolve parliament on 20 December. ‘I focused on running the reconstituted parliament full-time and seeking political stability within it”

Prime Minister Oli’s argument that the restored parliament should run for a full term and seek political stability from the parliament does not agree with his claims number 15 to 27, on his statement.

Arguing that the dissolution of the 5th Parliament was correct in point 23, he said, “Going for a fresh mandate is not a regression. It is a feature of democracy to give the people a chance to evaluate the parties and to get the mandate to run the government to the party that the people trust through periodic elections.

I don’t see a reliable basis for a vote of confidence again

Prime Minister Oli, who recommended to the President to move ahead with the process of forming a government under Article 76 (5) without taking a vote of confidence as per the constitutional process and without resigning, has argued that there is no reliable basis for getting a vote of confidence. However, with the decision to dissolve the parliament on December 20, the rift between one faction of the party (Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato) has become public since May 22

If Thakur and Mahato’s party (currently 20 MPs) are taken together, the possibility of a vote of confidence is not hidden. As talks with another faction of the CPN (UML) move forward, the basis for publicly bringing the budget as the Prime Minister under Oli Article 76 (3) is clear.

We worked to make the UML united and dynamic as a legacy party of unification, but some leaders did not seem to be fully aware of their divisive activities.

Prime Minister and UML Chairman Oli has accused another group (Jhala Nath Khanal and Madhav Kumar Nepal) of not being in favor of unity. He says his focus has been on defending integration and pursuing his comrades-in-arms.

While the Khanal-Nepal group is in a position to move ahead from the UML structure as per the decision of the Supreme Court. He said that he supported Deuba’s demand to save the House of Representatives after he tried to dissolve the parliament while talks were being held at the working group level.

Oli also has another resolution about the UML: the party will continue to work for unity despite the insults, insults and pain. The future will show that determination. But now the former prime minister and the founding leaders of UML Dhar Nirman have expelled Khanal and Nepal from being ordinary members after repeatedly asking for explanations.