The dismissal of Nepal Electricity Authority chief Kulman Ghising has become a textbook case of mistiming and misjudgment. The Cabinet meeting on Monday evening sacked Ghising from the post and replaced him with Hitendra Dev Shakya. Within hours of the decision becoming public, not only those from opposition parties but also key leaders from the ruling coalition took to social media to object. On Tuesday, people hit the streets demanding Ghising’s reinstatement. On Wednesday, opposition lawmakers obstructed meetings of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly seeking the prime minister’s answer on the sacking of the NEA chief.

Prime Minister Oli, in his usual style, has shown no sign of heeding the voice either of opposition leaders or the public. While addressing cadres of his party’s youth wing in Kathmandu later in the afternoon, Oli asserted that he wouldn’t answer questions “on such trivial issues”. Arguing that the government has the authority to fire an employee and pick a replacement, he said a prime minister can’t be compelled to appoint employees as per the convenience of opposition forces.

People have been divided over the role of Ghising for some years. A large section of society praises him for his proactive role in reforming the NEA and doing away with the hours-long power cuts. While giving him credit for removing load-shedding, some people even deify him. Others project him as a government employee who causes difficulty in the administration by disobeying his superiors.

It would be wrong to give Ghising all the credit for ending hours-long power cuts and reforming the public utility. Yet he did play a big role in ending the ‘age of darkness’ in the country. It was because of his influence and public support that he could drastically bring down the NEA’s power leakage, clear years-long pending bills and improve power flow management. Energy Minister Dipak Khadka, however, wasn’t having any of it. Khadka and Ghising were at loggerheads ever since the formation of this government in July last year. The two didn’t see eye to eye on many issues, including the payment of industries’ outstanding dues.

When two people in key posts cannot sort out their differences, it is up to the executive head of the government to play the role of a skilful mediator. The prime minister did not. Oli is right that as prime minister he should have a free hand in staff management. But it is as important to create an atmosphere where capable people are given enough space to operate independently, away from constant political meddling. Yet, in this instance, Oli has come away as a meddlesome administrator who insists on always getting his way.

As always, even after widespread criticism, Oli appears to be in no mood to compromise and review Ghising’s firing, even as the latter is seeking a legal route for the restoration of his lost post. Oli is walking on thin ice. By antagonising such a large section of the public and the political class, Prime Minister Oli is inviting a political backlash he may not be able to handle.