Nepal CPN-UML Ain Mahar Parliament Speaker Government Constitution Authoritarianism

UML Chief Whip Ain Mahar Accuses Government of Acting Above the Constitution

CPN-UML Chief Whip Ain Mahar has accused the government of authoritarian behavior, saying it is ignoring legal norms and parliamentary practice while the Speaker’s conduct also comes under scrutiny.

Apple Nepal

CPN-UML Chief Whip Ain Mahar has launched a sharp attack on the current government, accusing it of behaving in an authoritarian manner and disregarding established legal and parliamentary practice.

Speaking at the party’s parliamentary office in Singha Durbar on Thursday, Mahar said the government was acting as if it stood above the constitution and existing laws. He argued that power was being exercised with excessive confidence in numbers rather than respect for institutional norms.

Mahar also questioned the role and conduct of the Speaker during parliamentary proceedings, raising concerns about whether the office was upholding neutrality and procedural standards. His remarks add fresh tension to an already combative political atmosphere inside Nepal’s federal parliament.

The criticism from the UML whip appears aimed not only at the government but also at how parliamentary process is being managed. By framing the issue as one of constitutional discipline, Mahar is tapping into a broader opposition narrative that the ruling side is overreaching and sidelining conventional democratic checks.

The comments come from a politician who was appointed as UML Chief Whip earlier this year, a role that carries responsibility for maintaining party discipline and steering parliamentary strategy. That position gives added weight to his remarks and signals that the party intends to keep pressure on the government inside the House.

For now, Mahar’s statement underscores a familiar fault line in Nepali politics: the clash between majority power and institutional restraint. With the Speaker’s conduct also being questioned, the dispute is likely to deepen debate over how Parliament is being run and whether constitutional conventions are being followed in practice.