Rejection of two ambassadorial nominees brings RSP tensions into focus

The Parliamentary Hearing Committee rejected two ambassadorial nominations but did not make a final decision on the third. This matters because it is the first reported rejection of a government recommendation by a House committee, despite the Rastriya Swatantra Party leading a majority government.

Giribahadur Sunar, proposed for Saudi Arabia, was rejected after the committee heard a woman’s account of violence allegedly inflicted by him. Chudamani Kharel, proposed for Malaysia, was rejected because the committee said he did not meet the qualifications in the Ambassadorial Appointment Directives, 2018. Jigyan Kumar Thapa, proposed for Japan, was not approved or rejected.

The committee deferred Thapa’s nomination while seeking further clarification about a potential conflict of interest. Pressure was later reported on the committee chair to reject Thapa too. The three nominations therefore ended in two rejections and one unresolved case.

The Parliamentary Hearing Committee is a parliamentary panel responsible for reviewing nominees sent by the government for ambassadorial appointments. Its hearings provide lawmakers with a formal opportunity to examine candidates’ qualifications, suitability, and possible conflicts of interest before appointments proceed.

The article shows the committee exercising real authority. It rejected Sunar and Kharel after examining concerns about their qualifications and suitability. It also deferred Thapa’s nomination while seeking clarification about a potential conflict of interest. The government had recommended all three names, but the committee did not simply approve them.

This authority is important because ambassadorial appointments affect Nepal’s representation abroad. The committee’s chairperson, Bodh Narayan Shrestha, said serious concerns had emerged about two nominees. RSP spokesperson Jagadish Kharel called the decision a correction of executive action and an example of parliamentary oversight.

The Parliamentary Hearing Committee had 15 members in total. Eight members, including its chairperson, belonged to the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party. This meant the RSP held a majority inside the panel that reviewed the ambassadorial nominations.

The membership matters because the committee rejected two names recommended by an RSP-led majority government. The article describes this as the first instance of a government recommendation being rejected by a House committee. Earlier governments had been coalition governments, making the present case politically unusual.

The committee’s composition also feeds the article’s focus on internal party tensions. Sunar and Kharel were reportedly close to Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s camp, while Thapa’s nomination was recommended on behalf of Speaker DP Aryal. The RSP majority therefore did not guarantee automatic approval of the government’s nominees.

The committee rejected Sunar and Kharel because it said they failed to meet the qualifications set by the Ambassadorial Appointment Directives, 2018. The decision also reflected specific concerns about their suitability. The committee’s chairperson identified an allegation of violence involving Sunar and wider concerns about the proposed candidates.

Sunar’s case included testimony from the woman involved in the complaint. She submitted her account to the committee through a video call. Shrestha said this testimony led members to reject Sunar’s nomination for Saudi Arabia. Kharel’s nomination for Malaysia was rejected under the stated qualification requirements.

Thapa’s nomination for Japan had a different status. The committee deferred it while seeking further clarification about an alleged conflict of interest. Nepalis living in Japan and some RSP members urged Shrestha to reject it, but the committee had not made that final decision when the article was published.

Ambassadorial rejections can raise doubts about whether the government carefully checks candidates before recommending them. They may also make the government appear divided or careless, especially when its own parliamentary majority refuses to approve nominees. The article links the episode to questions about vetting, merit, and political influence.

The clearest risk concerns Nepal’s relationships with the countries involved. An RSP leader said recommending a tainted or controversial person was a government mistake because ambassadors represent Nepal in bilateral relations with host countries. Sunar had been proposed for Saudi Arabia, Kharel for Malaysia, and Thapa for Japan.

The immediate consequence is delay and renewed scrutiny. Two posts cannot proceed with those nominees, while Thapa’s case remains unresolved. The controversy has also drawn the foreign minister into criticism. Going forward, stronger vetting could help protect the government’s credibility and Nepal’s standing with foreign partners.

The rejections may reveal competition inside the Rastriya Swatantra Party because two nominees reportedly associated with Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s camp were rejected by an RSP-majority committee. The episode therefore looks less like routine approval and more like a test of influence within the ruling party.

Party sources said Sunar and Kharel were close to Shah’s camp. Thapa’s nomination was reportedly recommended on behalf of Speaker DP Aryal. The article also reports tensions between Shah and party chairman Rabi Lamichhane, while unnamed insiders described multiple power centres pressing the foreign minister over proposed appointments.

The evidence remains based on reports from party sources and insiders, not a public confirmation of a formal split. Still, the outcome has political consequences. Pressure was reportedly building to reject Thapa as well. The dispute could intensify scrutiny of future appointments and challenge the party’s promise of merit-based governance.

Legislative hearings matter because executive appointments can affect public institutions and national interests. A hearing gives lawmakers a chance to test qualifications, examine conduct, and identify conflicts before a nominee takes office. That scrutiny makes appointments more transparent than a purely executive decision.

This case shows the mechanism clearly. The government recommended three ambassadorial candidates, but the committee questioned their suitability. It rejected Sunar and Kharel, and paused Thapa’s nomination pending clarification. The committee also heard a woman’s account concerning Sunar through a video call before reaching its decision.

Such oversight can strengthen public confidence when it is based on clear standards and evidence. RSP spokesperson Jagadish Kharel described the decision as a correction of executive action and a balance of power. The episode also shows why consistent vetting matters, since political disputes can otherwise overshadow the merit-based process the government promised.