Oli must account for crime of omission

HIRAMANI GHIMIRE

- 

nSeptember 9, Nepal entered astate of near-total anarchy.

By mid-afternoon, KP Sharma Oli - then prime minister - sent his resignation letter to Sheetal Niwas, which was immediately accepted. Yet, constitutionally, Oli didn’timmediately lose office and become a private citizen - he remained the caretaker PM until his successor Sushila Karki assumed office on September 12 - and in that capacity, was clothed with the full powers and responsibilities of the office.

That reality carried with it the solemn obligations to uphold the ‘onstitution, protect citizens’ lives and properties and prevent a collapse of law and order. Instead of fulfilling these obligations, Oli vanished from sight, reportedly retreating into an army barrack - transforming what should have been a ‘command centre’ into a ‘bunker of retreat’.

What followed is etched into history - flames engulfed Singha Durbar and hundreds of government buildings around the country, looters ransacked commercial establishments and even private homes, prison gates were opened to allow inmates to pour out and complete lawlessness prevailed. The police disappeared from the streets, and the army never left its barracks, citing a lack of mobilisation orders. The proverbial Nero-esque caretaker PM - whose duty it was to prevent any ofthis - however, continued playing the metaphorical flute as Nepal continued burning.

Article 77(3) of the Constitution is unambiguous - the PM remains in office until a successor assumes office. Oli, who is experienced in losing office four times, did follow this constitutional provision on the previous three occasions in 2016 and 2021. Oli very well knew (and had practised) that ‘caretaker’ status does not diminish authority or responsibility; it exists precisely to guarantee continuity in turbulence regardless of how limited other powers (such as making key appointments) may be.