The fate of four proposed ambassadors, who are being vetted by the parliamentary hearing special committee, hangs in the balance.

The parliamentary committee has completed the hearing of 17 envoy nominees but its members are divided over four proposed names—Shankar Sharma (India), Kapil Shrestha (South Africa), Dhan Prasad Pandit (Israel) and Netra Prasad Timilsina (Malaysia)—and are undecided.

A meeting of the hearing committee, which was scheduled for Wednesday, has been deferred till Thursday owing to the differences over the four nominees, according to committee member Shyam Ghimire.

The committee had received complaints against Sharma, Shrestha, Pandit and Timilsina; and the committee itself has reservations over the nominees, said a lawmaker. Sharma, Shrestha and Pandit were recommended under the quota of Nepali Congress and Timilsina under CPN-UML’s.

Committee members told the Post that several complaints were filed against the four proposed envoys, raising serious issues, so they were unable to take a concrete decision.

After completing the hearing of all proposed ambassadors, a meeting was slated for Sunday to take the final decision but due to the differences among the members, the meeting was deferred. Since the Rastriya Swatantra Party held its national jamboree on Tuesday and Wednesday, the meeting is rescheduled for Thursday, Ghimire said.

Even Congress and UML members on the committee seem divided this time, a lawmaker said, after Congress panelists raised questions about the credentials of Timilsina. Then UML members also raised complaints against Sharma, Shrestha and Pandit.

“We do not know what Congress and UML committee members and senior party leaders are thinking and discussing but due to the nature of complaints, there are serious disputes about the four proposed ambassadors and there is growing opinion that they should be rejected,” said a member on condition of anonymity.

The complainer has stated that the recommendation of Sharma, who may be repeated as Nepal’s ambassador to India, goes against the ambassadorial appointment directives (2077 BS).

As per the directives, the same person cannot be reappointed to head the same diplomatic mission, the complainant says.

Committee members had asked that question to Sharma as well but he replied that this should be taken up with the government, not him.

The government issued the directive but it has been violated by successive governments multiple times. Therefore, ambassadorial appointments never follow the spirit of the directive.

The complaint against Shrestha, who is proposed for South Africa, raises the constitutional and legal question because as per the constitutional provision, a person cannot be repeated and reappointed to another constitutional post.

Similarly, a case has been filed at the Supreme Court on behalf of Timilsina wherein he seeks to get continuity as acting chair of Nepal Red Cross Society, said the complainant. So he is unfit to serve as ambassador because he has filed a petition at the Supreme Court to get continuation as the chair of Nepal Red Cross Society and the court has not cleared the deck.

Defending his case, Timilsina said that as an institution, the Red Cross had filed the case, not him. Timilsina was also accused of misusing the letter pad and stamp of the Red Cross Society and forming a parallel committee even after completing his tenure. The complainer has accused that Timilsina has misused the Red Cross’s name for personal gain, misused the letter pad and stamp and made illegal correspondence to various entities. A complaint was registered at the Kathmandu District Administration Office and Nepal Police is looking into the allegations.

Committee members of the Congress and the UML were divided over the complaint against Timilsina, another member said. Now the UML has threatened to disqualify all three candidates recommended by the Congress if they continue to raise questions against Timilsina.

“There are some complaints filed against the proposed ambassadors which we are looking into,” said Prakash Adhikari, a lawmaker from the Janata Samajbadi Party. “We have not decided what to do.”

The proposed ambassador to Israel, Pandit faces a charge that he was penalised by the Information Commission and is thus unfit to serve as ambassador.

When Pandit was the chief of Padma Kanya Campus in Kathmandu, the Information Commission fined him Rs15,000 for not sharing information. Later, he moved the Appellate Court against the commission's decision but the court gave its verdict in the commission’s favour.

Pandit’s statement that he will try his best to stop the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas was also criticised. But Pandit defended his case during the hearing process stating that the fine was imposed on the campus chief of Padmakanya Campus, not him as a person.

The government had recommended Naresh Bikram Dhakal (Saudi Arabia), Prof Dr Kapilman Shrestha (South Africa), Prof Dhana Prasad Pandit (Israel), Ram Krishna Bhattarai (Sri Lanka), Sanil Nepal (Spain), and Dr Shail Rupakheti (Germany) as ambassadors.

The recommendation of Kanta Rijal for the Australia mission was later changed with the government choosing Chitra Lekha Yadav instead. Incumbent Foreign Secretary Sewa Lamasal has been recommended for the European Union and Brussels but both nominations have yet to be sent to the parliamentary hearing special committee.

Lok Darshan Regmi (USA), Chandra Kumar Ghimire (UK), Shiva Maya Tumbahangphe (South Korea), Junga Bahadur Chauhan (Russia), Ramesh Chandra Poudel (Qatar), Prof Dr Krishna Prasad Oli (China), Dr Sumnima Tuladhar (Denmark), Dr Netra Prasad Timilsina (Malaysia), Prakash Mani Pokhrel (Portugal) and Rita Dhital (Pakistan) are others recommended for ambassador positions.

“We will discuss the matter with legal experts and will proceed accordingly,” said Ghimire. “If someone wants to disqualify any ambassador, one needs a strong reason. But the complaints were not serious.”

Taking an exception to the nomination, the hearing committee on September 9 summoned Foreign Minister Arzu Rana and inquired why the government had failed to make the appointments inclusive.

On July 29, the government recommended 17 ambassadors and recalled some. The recommendations also failed to honour the spirit of inclusiveness.