Cooling-Off Period Controversy Deepens: Allegations of Oversight, Betrayal, and Political Collusion
Hamrakura
Published 2025 Jul 02 Wednesday
Kathmandu: A growing controversy has erupted over the removal of the 'cooling-off period' provision from the recently passed Federal Civil Service Bill, with major political parties, civil society, and legal experts raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability in the parliamentary process.
Although public criticism has been widespread, questions are now being raised over whether the omission was a coordinated effort or simply a case of legislative negligence. Some observers have accused lawmakers of protesting merely for appearances, while others question whether this was a calculated political maneuver involving all major parties.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Devraj Ghimire, responded to the controversy by stating that the House passed the version of the bill submitted by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee. He hinted that the error may have occurred while the committee was finalizing the report and admitted that MPs may not have thoroughly reviewed the content before voting.
“It appears the members of the House didn’t pay close attention to the details of the committee's report,” said Speaker Ghimire. He emphasized that targeting individuals would be inappropriate and clarified that the Speaker’s role does not include altering legislation except for minor editorial corrections. He added that the National Assembly now has the opportunity to amend the bill, after which it will return to the House of Representatives for final endorsement.
The controversy centers around Section 82(4) of the bill, which originally mandated a two-year cooling-off period before retired civil servants could be appointed to any government or constitutional post. However, Section 82(5)(a) introduced an exception that effectively nullified the earlier clause, stating that the restriction would not apply to “posts other than constitutional or diplomatic appointments or any other appointment made by the Government of Nepal.”
This loophole has drawn sharp criticism and fueled suspicions of bad faith. Allegations have emerged that this amendment was deliberately inserted, overriding the committee's consensus to maintain the cooling-off period.
The ruling Nepali Congress has called the change a “betrayal of trust.” Party spokesperson Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat stated that the Congress had unanimously agreed to retain the cooling-off clause and said the committee’s consensus was undermined by the insertion of conflicting provisions. “This is a serious breach of trust. Those responsible for misusing their authority must be investigated,” he said.
The Congress has urged the government to immediately correct the provision and punish those involved. Similarly, the CPN-UML has also expressed strong opposition. Following internal discussions and consultations with Speaker Ghimire and committee chair Ramhari Khatiwada, UML declared it would reject the bill in its current form.
CPN-UML MP Padam Giri described the incident as a “serious conspiracy” and a “mockery of Parliament.” He said the omission not only undermined the committee’s hard-won consensus but also compromised the integrity of the legislative process. "We had agreed on a cooling period after extensive discussions. Now it’s been erased without any explanation," he said.
Speaker Ghimire has assured that the Parliamentary Secretariat is investigating how the bill was finalized and processed. He also acknowledged that this controversy has raised broader concerns about the quality and seriousness of committee-level deliberations, given that many MPs failed to thoroughly review the clauses.
The Federal Civil Service Bill had been under scrutiny ever since the tragic Saurya Air crash last year prompted renewed calls for better governance. The bill, seen as a key reform measure, now faces uncertain prospects amid intense political fallout.
As the bill heads to the National Assembly for further consideration, all eyes are on whether the upper house will correct what appears to be a legislative lapse—or potentially expose deeper flaws in Nepal’s parliamentary oversight system.