On Wednesday, a parliamentary committee dominated by the Rastriya Swatantra Party rejected two of the government’s ambassadorial nominees. 

The Parliamentary Hearing Committee rejected the nominations of Giribahadur Sunar, proposed as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and Chudamani Kharel, proposed as ambassador to Malaysia. The panel deferred its decision on Jigyan Kumar Thapa, the nominee for Japan, pending further clarification over his potential conflict of interest.

The rejection has raised questions about the selection process and brought into focus purported tensions within the ruling party.

The committee has 15 members, eight of whom, including the chairperson, are from the ruling RSP. In the RSP-majority committee, lawmakers declined to approve two of the government’s nominees, citing concerns about their qualifications and suitability.

This is the first instance of a government recommendation being rejected by a House committee. What makes it particularly significant is that the RSP leads a majority government, unlike previous coalition governments.

The rejections come amid reports of internal divisions within the RSP, with party insiders pointing to tensions between Prime Minister Balendra Shah and his inner circle and party chairman Rabi Lamichhane.

According to party sources, Sunar and Kharel were considered close to Shah’s camp, while Thapa’s nomination was recommended on behalf of Speaker DP Aryal.

Party insiders said concerns had been raised about the nominees, but members of Shah’s inner circle refused to reconsider their appointments.

A ruling party leader close to Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal said the selection process had encountered some problems initially but no major issues while it remained under the minister’s control. The situation changed, however, when different power centres within the party became active, the leader said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

When different power centres piled pressure, the foreign minister ultimately yielded, the leader said, without identifying the interest groups.

The leader added that Khanal appeared unhappy with some of the proposed names, including those recommended to represent Nepal in key countries, but was unable to resist pressure from multiple power centres existing in the party. Consequently, the contested appointment process has landed the foreign minister himself in controversy.

Shah’s chief political adviser Kumar Byanajankar, also known as Kumar Ben, was actively involved in the ambassadorial selection process and held informal discussions with various individuals.

Following the rejection of the two nominees associated with Shah’s camp, pressure reportedly mounts on Bodh Narayan Shrestha, chairperson of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee, to reject Thapa’s nomination as well.

Nepalis living in Japan, along with some individuals within the RSP, have also approached Shrestha, urging the committee to reject Thapa’s nomination over the alleged conflict of interest.

Shrestha said serious concerns had emerged regarding Sunar and Kharel, prompting the committee to reject their nominations.

“Sunar’s nomination was rejected because of the violence [he inflicted] against a woman,” Shrestha said. “The victim had filed a complaint and also presented her account to the committee through a video call. After that, we decided to reject his nomination.”

The committee said Sunar’s and Kharel’s nominations were rejected because they did not meet the qualifications specified in the Ambassadorial Appointment Directives, 2018. Thapa’s nomination remains on hold pending further clarification.

An RSP leader said the government should have exercised greater caution before recommending candidates for ambassadorial positions.

“Personal incidents involving an individual should not necessarily damage the image of the party and the government,” the leader said. “However, recommending a tainted and controversial person as an ambassador was a mistake on the government’s part because ambassadorial appointments concern Nepal’s bilateral relations with the host country.”

Other RSP leaders defended the committee’s decision, describing it as an example of parliamentary oversight and a check on executive power.

“The government recommended the names of ambassadors and sent them for parliamentary hearings. The hearing committee corrected the government’s decisions, and that was a good outcome in terms of balancing power,” said Jagadish Kharel, the RSP spokesperson.

“The decision shows our commitment to democracy and the parliamentary system. Our commitment to good governance, transparency and meritocracy has been demonstrated. More importantly, the executive’s decision has been corrected by the legislature,” he said.

Amaresh Kumar Singh, an RSP lawmaker, also defended the committee’s decision, saying the government’s parliamentary majority should not shield its decisions from scrutiny.

“Having a two-thirds majority does not mean that every government decision is correct. In a democracy, the rule of law, established procedures and national interests stand above the government,” he said. “In a sensitive matter such as ambassadorial appointments, a parliamentary committee questioning the government’s recommendations and blocking them when necessary is an important exercise of parliamentary oversight.”

The controversy has also raised questions about the government’s promise to prioritise merit over political connections in ambassadorial appointments.

On May 28, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs invited applications through an open call to fill vacant ambassadorial positions in 13 countries, including India, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The initiative attracted more than 4,400 applications. After removing duplicate and incomplete applications, officials shortlisted around 2,700 candidates before narrowing the field to a few hundred.

On September 19, a Cabinet meeting recommended 13 candidates for ambassadorial positions and forwarded their names to the Parliamentary Hearing Committee for vetting. Even as the process took more than four months, the final recommendations were not free of controversy.

“The process was based on trial and error,” said an official at the foreign ministry, adding that the controversy might have been avoided had the ministry formed a small team to headhunt suitable candidates instead of inviting applications through an open call.

Madhu Raman Acharya, a former foreign secretary and ambassador, said the absence of preliminary vetting and transparency had contributed to the problems. The process also revealed a lack of clarity over the qualifications required for ambassadorial appointments, he said.

“We thought the new government would make some positive strides, but it has not sent any positive signals. If we ask whether the Foreign Ministry was involved in the vetting process, I think it was. Otherwise, such mistakes would not have happened,” Acharya said.

Acharya is among several former diplomats who have advocated forming a small team to identify suitable ambassadorial candidates rather than relying on an open application process.

The government had presented the open competition as a departure from the tradition of distributing ambassadorial appointments according to political quotas. The latest controversy raises questions about how effectively the ministry assessed applicants before forwarding its recommendations to the Cabinet.

The controversy has also drawn criticism from opposition parties. Bishnu Rijal, a member of the foreign relations department of the CPN-UML, questioned the process by which the government selected the nominees from more than 4,000 applicants, given that two had been rejected by the parliamentary committee and a third remained under scrutiny.

“This time, the committee has done good work by rejecting two notorious, unqualified and unethical individuals,” Rijal said.