KATHMANDU: Nepal’s brief respite from political turmoil has been shattered as a controversial land ordinance has reignited political instability.
The ruling and opposition parties are locked in a fierce battle of words, each unveiling rival strategies in an attempt to garner public support.
This growing conflict highlights the government’s deepening challenges in reaching consensus, exposing the fragility of its governance amid increasing unrest.
The government now finds itself at a critical juncture, with limited options. It must either withdraw the ordinance, risking public perception of failure, or explore alternative legislative approaches to address the concerns of coalition partners and opposition parties.
If the ordinance fails to pass within the 60-day constitutional window, it will become void, further complicating the political and administrative landscape for the Congress-UML ruling coalition.
On January 10, the government recommended the issuance of five ordinances, including one on land management.
President Ramchandra Paudel issued four of the ordinances on January 13 but took an additional two days to review the land management ordinance, following concerns raised by senior ministers from KP Sharma Oli’s administration.
Ultimately, the President issued the disputed ordinance on January 15. Earlier, on December 29, the President had also issued an ordinance amending the Cooperative Act.
The government introduced the ordinances in the House of Representatives during the first meeting of the winter session of the federal parliament on January 31, fulfilling the constitutional obligation to present ordinances at the session’s opening.
These ordinances were scheduled for endorsement on February 6, but the government refrained from putting them to a vote, anticipating that they would not pass in the National Assembly without support from the Upendra Yadav-led Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSP-Nepal).
While the ruling coalition holds a majority in the lower house, it lacks the same strength in the upper house.
The Nepali Congress holds 16 seats in the 59-member National Assembly, the CPN-UML has 10 seats, and the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party has one.
Even with the support of Anjan Shakya and Bamdev Gautam, the ruling alliance would have only 29 seats—one seat short of a majority. The JSP-Nepal, with its three seats, holds the balance of power and can secure a majority for either side.
The government’s struggle to push the ordinance through underscores a profound moral and strategic crisis.
The lack of unity within the ruling coalition, coupled with a strong opposition, has eroded confidence in the government’s ability to govern effectively.
To restore its credibility, the government must prioritize transparency, inclusivity, and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders to resolve the political deadlock and avoid further instability.
Pressure is mounting on the government as it struggles to advance the land ordinance.
The inability to secure a majority in the National Assembly has stalled the ordinance, with significant opposition even from within the ruling coalition.
The Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (LSP), a coalition partner, has openly opposed the ordinance, further weakening the government’s position.
In Nepal’s political circles, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s tenure has become synonymous with controversies surrounding ordinances.
The situation has worsened with public dissent from the Nepal Students’ Union (NSU), the student wing of the ruling Nepali Congress, which has taken to the streets in defiance of its own party-led government.
The government’s social media regulation bill has also faced widespread criticism, amplifying public discontent and backlash against the ruling coalition.
The lack of a majority in the National Assembly has proven to be a major obstacle. The ordinance requires 30 votes for passage in the 59-member National Assembly, but only 27 members—16 from the Nepali Congress and 11 from the UML—support it. Opposition from 18 Maoist MPs, 8 Unified Socialist MPs, 3 JSP-Nepal MPs, and one each from Janamorcha and LSP has created a deadlock.
Even the neutral stance of Bamdev Gautam, who could potentially sway the vote, is insufficient to secure the required majority.
The LSP’s opposition to the ordinance stems from its belief that it would harm marginalized communities, promote deforestation, and enable illegal land occupation.
LSP President Mahantha Thakur issued a public statement highlighting that the ordinance disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, such as the Dom, Musahar, Chamar, and other impoverished, agriculture-dependent communities.
The LSP has condemned the ordinance as an effort to benefit corrupt individuals, land mafias, and vested interests while jeopardizing public lands and ecological regions like the Chure.
The government is now grappling with a deep moral crisis. The current situation has drawn comparisons to the resignation of former Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in 2050 BS after his government’s policies failed in Parliament.
Although the circumstances are not identical, the government’s inability to deliver on its legislative promises raises questions about its legitimacy and leadership.
Opposition parties have presented a unified front against the government. The JSP-Nepal, which has supported the government on other issues, has rejected the land ordinance, calling it a legal gateway for arbitrary distribution of public lands.
The JSP-Nepal’s parliamentary party report warns of risks such as ecological degradation and the destruction of the Chure region, a vital ecological lifeline for Madhesh.
Oli’s reliance on ordinances intensified as intra-party rifts escalated within the then-ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). In April 2020, his government introduced two contentious ordinances that caused political tremors nationwide.
This opposition is in line with broader criticisms from parties like the Maoists, Unified Socialists, and RPP, further isolating the government. These parties have accused the ordinance of catering to special interests while ignoring the welfare of the public.
Oli and Ordinances: A Legacy of Controversy
In Nepal’s political circles, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s tenure has become synonymous with controversies surrounding ordinances.
Since returning to power with a two-thirds majority, Oli has repeatedly used ordinances to bypass the legislature, effectively consolidating lawmaking power in his hands.
Critics argue that this practice undermines parliamentary democracy and evokes memories of authoritarian rule.
From April 2020 until the end of his premiership, Oli’s actions remained highly controversial.
His tenure culminated when the Supreme Court overturned his May 21 decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.
The court ordered President Bidya Devi Bhandari to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister under Article 76(5) of the Constitution.
The ruling mandated that Deuba be appointed by 5 p.m. Tuesday and that the House of Representatives reconvene by 5 p.m. on July 18.
During his time in office, Oli’s government issued over two dozen ordinances, seven of which were re-promulgated rather than being tabled in Parliament.
These actions, widely seen as attempts to consolidate personal power, attracted sharp criticism from legal experts, opposition leaders, and civil society.
A ruling by Nepal’s Supreme Court in June 2020 curtailed Oli’s unchecked use of ordinances.
The constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice Cholendra Rana, declared that the power to issue ordinances is not absolute but conditional.
As Nepal’s political landscape evolves, the debate over Oli’s legacy—and the proper use of ordinances in a parliamentary democracy—will remain a critical chapter in the nation’s history.
It clarified that Article 114 of the Constitution permits ordinances only when both Houses of Parliament are not in session and when an immediate need arises.
The court further emphasized that ordinances designed to bypass parliamentary oversight constitute “colorable legislation,” which cannot be deemed valid.
This decision came in the context of an ordinance amending the Citizenship Act, which, while not controversial in content, was criticized for being promulgated improperly.
The ruling was seen as a critical step toward reining in Oli’s authoritarian impulses and addressing the systemic misuse of ordinances by successive governments.
Oli’s reliance on ordinances intensified as intra-party rifts escalated within the then-ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). In April 2020, his government introduced two contentious ordinances that caused political tremors nationwide.
One amended the Constitutional Council Act, while the other altered the Political Party Act, enabling parties to split with the support of 40% of lawmakers or the central committee—a significant departure from the earlier requirement for both.
Critics argued that these changes could empower the prime minister to appoint loyalists to key constitutional bodies, such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, and potentially pave the way for emergency rule.
These ordinances coincided with an unprecedented crisis as Nepal grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many questioned the timing and necessity of such sweeping legislative changes, suggesting they were designed to consolidate Oli’s hold on power rather than address pressing national concerns.
The ordinances deepened existing fractures within the NCP, particularly between Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the party’s co-chair.
Their rivalry hindered the full realization of the 2018 merger between the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center).
The April ordinances were seen by many as a strategic move by Oli to weaken Dahal’s influence and cement his own dominance within the party.
These developments marked a turning point in Nepal’s political landscape. Leaders across the spectrum condemned Oli’s actions, warning of the erosion of democratic institutions and the sidelining of parliamentary processes.
The Council of Ministers subsequently recommends the ordinance to the President, who issues it. Finally, the ordinance is published in the Nepal Gazette, marking its formal enactment.
While the government argued that extraordinary circumstances necessitated such measures, the broader consensus is that Oli’s reliance on ordinances undermined the democratic ethos of Nepal’s Constitution.
As Nepal’s political landscape evolves, the debate over Oli’s legacy—and the proper use of ordinances in a parliamentary democracy—will remain a critical chapter in the nation’s history.
What is an Ordinance?
An ordinance is a temporary law enacted by the executive branch of the government.
While the primary responsibility for making laws lies with the legislature or Parliament, the Constitution grants the executive the authority to issue ordinances in extraordinary circumstances.
These ordinances carry the same force and effect as laws passed by Parliament.
The executive uses this power when Parliament is not in session, allowing the government to address urgent legal needs or critical emergencies without delay.
This authority, defined as a constitutional right, is exercised by the President upon the recommendation of the Council of Ministers.
Constitutional Provisions for Ordinances
The Constitution of Nepal, promulgated in 2015, provides detailed guidelines for the issuance of ordinances.
Article 114 of the Constitution outlines the conditions under which the President can promulgate ordinances.
These conditions include the absence of both Houses of Parliament and the existence of circumstances that necessitate immediate action.
Once issued, an ordinance must be tabled in Parliament when it reconvenes. If both Houses fail to approve the ordinance within 60 days, it automatically ceases to have legal effect.
Despite the constitutional safeguards, the actual practice of promulgating ordinances in Nepal has often deviated from the envisioned conditions, raising questions about their necessity and justification.
How Are Ordinances Issued?
The process of issuing an ordinance begins when a ministry identifies the need for urgent legal action.
The ministry submits a proposal, supported by a concept note and policy paper, to the Ministry of Law. After reviewing the proposal, the Ministry of Law forwards it to the Council of Ministers for approval.
Once the Council of Ministers approves the principle, the ordinance is drafted by the Ministry of Law and then finalized with the necessary concurrence.
Among its most contentious provisions, the ordinance facilitates the sale and distribution of land previously allocated for commercial purposes, even if such holdings exceed legal limits.
The Council of Ministers subsequently recommends the ordinance to the President, who issues it. Finally, the ordinance is published in the Nepal Gazette, marking its formal enactment.
When Do Ordinances Cease to Exist?
An ordinance ceases to exist under specific circumstances. First, the President has the authority to revoke an ordinance at any time.
Second, if the ordinance is not approved by both Houses of Parliament within 60 days of reconvening, it becomes void.
Lastly, ordinances that fail to withstand judicial scrutiny—being deemed unconstitutional or illegal—lose their legal validity.
Historical Trends in Issuing Ordinances in Nepal
The use of ordinances in Nepal has varied over time, reflecting shifts in political priorities and governance styles.
During the tenure of Nepal’s first democratically elected Prime Minister, B.P. Koirala (1959–1960), five ordinances were issued.
After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the trend of issuing ordinances slowed significantly, with only 23 ordinances issued between 1991 and 2002.
Following the dissolution of the House of Representatives in 2002, the number of ordinances increased dramatically, peaking at 79 in 2005. Under the Interim Constitution (2007–2015), the issuance of ordinances declined, with only 39 promulgated during this period.
Since the adoption of the 2015 Constitution, the use of ordinances has continued, albeit under growing criticism.
During K.P. Sharma Oli’s tenure (2018–2021), 31 ordinances were issued, some of which were re-promulgated multiple times.
The contentious land ordinance has highlighted deepening divisions within Nepal’s political landscape and exposed vulnerabilities in the ruling coalition.
Similarly, Sher Bahadur Deuba’s government issued 15 ordinances, while Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s tenure saw the promulgation of three ordinances.
Why is the Land Ordinance So Controversial?
The current land ordinance has sparked widespread controversy due to its far-reaching implications.
Among its most contentious provisions, the ordinance facilitates the sale and distribution of land previously allocated for commercial purposes, even if such holdings exceed legal limits.
While it includes measures aimed at addressing the plight of landless Dalits, squatters, and unorganized settlers, the ordinance has drawn criticism for being ineffective and politically motivated.
Previous land commissions tasked with resolving these issues have failed to make significant progress, and this ordinance appears to follow a similar trajectory.
For instance, the ordinance mentions allowing settlements on public land, riverbanks, areas prone to natural disasters, national parks, forested regions, and road boundaries—spaces that are environmentally fragile or inherently unsafe for habitation.
Critics argue that these measures could worsen inequalities and undermine the interests of marginalized communities, especially those reliant on agriculture.
Furthermore, the clause permitting state-allocated lands to be sold as regular land is seen as a direct attempt to benefit influential entities, such as the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate in Jhapa, allegedly connected to Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, by bypassing existing Supreme Court restrictions.
What Are the Controversies Surrounding Ordinances?
The increasing reliance on ordinances in recent years has sparked criticism, particularly regarding their perceived misuse to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.
While ruling party leaders express confidence in rallying support through ongoing negotiations, the ordinance’s failure could deepen rifts within the coalition, potentially jeopardizing its long-term stability.
For instance, during Sher Bahadur Deuba’s tenure, an ordinance was issued to amend the Political Parties Act, facilitating a split within a major political party.
Similarly, K.P. Sharma Oli’s government used an ordinance to relax quorum requirements for the Constitutional Council, effectively sidelining the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the House.
Such practices have raised concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the misuse of emergency powers by the executive branch.
Critics argue that ordinances, which are intended for exceptional circumstances, are increasingly being used for political expediency rather than addressing genuine emergencies.
What Are the Broader Political Implications of Ordinances?
The contentious land ordinance has highlighted deepening divisions within Nepal’s political landscape and exposed vulnerabilities in the ruling coalition.
Despite holding a strong majority in the House of Representatives, the coalition lacks a simple majority in the National Assembly to secure the ordinance’s passage.
This gap has led to a political impasse, with opposition parties and even some coalition members staunchly resisting the ordinance, citing its potentially harmful social and environmental consequences.
This controversy has also amplified the fragility of the Oli government’s position. Failure to pass the ordinance would not only undermine its legislative agenda but also erode public confidence in its ability to govern effectively.
While ruling party leaders express confidence in rallying support through ongoing negotiations, the ordinance’s failure could deepen rifts within the coalition, potentially jeopardizing its long-term stability.
Moreover, the government’s handling of the ordinance risks exacerbating perceptions of political self-interest and opportunism.
Critics argue that the provisions appear to serve specific financial and electoral objectives rather than addressing the genuine needs of Nepal’s landless population.
This perception could fuel broader political discontent and create challenges for the government in addressing other pressing issues, thereby intensifying the country’s political instability.
