Hearing committee rejects two ambassadorial nominees, puts Japan pick on hold

The committee rejected two nominees and paused a third. Giri Bahadur Sunar, nominated for Saudi Arabia, and Chudamani Kharel, nominated for Malaysia, were unanimously rejected. Jigyan Kumar Thapa’s nomination for Japan was deferred.

The committee approved the remaining ten nominees by allowing them to clear the parliamentary hearings. Their individual names are not provided in the article. The decisions followed three days of questioning about the nominees’ backgrounds and suitability for diplomatic assignments.

The rejections are unusual because the nominees were recommended by the government supported by the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party. Thapa’s case remains unresolved because lawmakers disagreed over his permanent residency status in Japan. The committee adjourned until after Dashain, so his nomination may be reconsidered then.

A parliamentary hearing committee is a group of lawmakers that examines people nominated for important public positions. It questions candidates, considers complaints and decides whether they are suitable. In this case, the committee reviewed nominees proposed for ambassadorial posts.

The review provides a formal check on the government’s recommendations. Lawmakers questioned the candidates about their backgrounds and diplomatic suitability during three days of hearings. They considered allegations involving conduct, finances and possible conflicts of interest. The committee unanimously rejected Sunar and Kharel, while postponing Thapa’s decision.

This process matters because ambassadors represent Nepal abroad. The committee’s decisions showed that even nominees selected by the government can face scrutiny. The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party held eight of the committee’s 15 seats, making the rejections especially notable. They also raised questions about possible differences between the ruling party and the government.

The government recommended 13 ambassadors on September 18. This followed a public selection process opened by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May. Thousands of people applied for the vacant positions, which then went through months of screening and consultations.

After three days of parliamentary hearings, ten nominees cleared the process. Lawmakers questioned candidates about their personal backgrounds and their suitability for diplomatic assignments. The committee rejected Giri Bahadur Sunar and Chudamani Kharel, nominated for Saudi Arabia and Malaysia respectively.

The thirteenth case remained unresolved. Jigyan Kumar Thapa, nominated for Japan, had his decision deferred because lawmakers disagreed about concerns surrounding his permanent residency status. The committee adjourned until after Dashain. The article does not state when the ten approved nominees will formally begin their assignments or whether further steps remain.

The committee rejected both nominees after lawmakers raised serious concerns about their conduct and financial dealings. The allegations mattered because ambassadors are expected to meet high ethical standards and represent Nepal credibly abroad.

Sunar, nominated for Saudi Arabia, faced allegations from a former partner involving an extramarital relationship, torture, threats and pressure to take her own life. He was also reportedly detained, handcuffed and deported from Germany. Other accusations involved collecting Rs3.3 million during police promotions. Sunar denied the harassment allegations.

Kharel, nominated for Malaysia, faced complaints about financial irregularities, land dealings and conflicts involving recruitment agencies. He was accused of taking money by promising jobs or government work, while some work remained unfinished and money was not returned. Kharel denied wrongdoing and said fabricated information had circulated. The committee rejected both nominations unanimously.

The committee’s decision separates the nominees into three groups. Ten cleared the parliamentary hearings. Sunar and Kharel were rejected. Thapa’s nomination was deferred rather than approved or rejected, so his appointment remains undecided.

The article does not describe the formal next steps for the ten nominees who cleared the hearings. It also does not state whether the government will replace the rejected candidates or submit new nominations. Their current nominations therefore cannot move forward on the basis of this committee decision.

Thapa’s case is more open. Lawmakers disagreed about whether to reject his nomination or defer it because of concerns about his permanent residency status in Japan. The chair adjourned the meeting until after Dashain. The committee is therefore expected to address the Japan nomination again, although the article gives no final outcome or timetable.

Permanent residency in Japan could raise questions about whether a nominee has a strong personal connection or continuing interests there. An ambassador is expected to represent Nepal’s interests, so lawmakers may examine whether outside ties could affect independence or public confidence.

For Thapa, the concern was his permanent residency status in Japan. Nepali Communist Party lawmaker Barshaman Pun cited that status while arguing that the nomination should be rejected. Other lawmakers supported deferring the decision instead. The disagreement prevented the committee from reaching a final decision.

The article does not state that Thapa broke any rule or explain the legal consequences of his residency. It only reports that lawmakers questioned the status. The committee adjourned until after Dashain, leaving the nomination unresolved. Any final decision would depend on the committee’s further consideration and applicable appointment requirements.

An ambassador is a country’s senior diplomatic representative in another country. The ambassador communicates with the host government, represents the sending country’s interests and helps manage official relations. The article focuses on nominee screening, but it does not describe ambassadors’ duties in detail.

Before an appointment becomes final, the receiving country normally gives prior consent, known as agrément. This lets the host government accept the proposed representative. It can refuse without publicly explaining why. That consent is separate from the sending country’s own nomination and parliamentary process.

The article states that Nepal’s government recommended 13 ambassadors and that nominees faced parliamentary hearings. It does not discuss consent from Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Japan or any other receiving country. Therefore, clearing Nepal’s committee would not by itself establish every diplomatic step needed for an ambassador to begin serving.