Constitution Amendment is Just an Excuse for Government Change: Prachanda

Kathmandu – Chairman of the CPN (Maoist Centre), Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, has accused the Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) of not being serious about constitutional amendment. He claims that they are using the issue as an excuse to change the government rather than a genuine agenda.

Speaking at an event today (Monday) organized by the Constitution Monitoring Group and the Institute for Strategic and Socio-Economic Research (ISSR), Prachanda emphasized that any constitutional amendment should address the rights of the people. The event was focused on “Constitution Implementation: Expectations and Reality.”

“Until just a few days before forming a new alliance, they had not formally discussed the need for constitutional amendment,” Prachanda stated. “So, this is not their agenda, it’s just a story and an excuse. It’s clear that they are using it as a tool to change the government.”

He further explained that since the current constitution is part of the peace agreement, there is no political significance in reaching a constitutional amendment agreement without involving the parties and leaders who signed the peace deal. “Congress and UML leaders made agreements secretly, not just from their own parties, but from the people too. After public pressure, the Prime Minister read it in parliament, but whether it’s real or fake is still unclear, as no signatures have been revealed,” Prachanda added.

While stating that constitutional amendments may be necessary, he stressed that the priority should be on proper implementation. “We should first focus on implementing the constitution. If problems arise during implementation, only then should we consider what needs to be amended,” Prachanda said.

 “But the current mindset of political leaders seems more focused on weakening the constitution rather than fully implementing it. The leaders who accepted the Maoist agenda during the constitution’s creation are not showing the same sincerity when it comes to implementation. Simply calling for amendments without proper implementation is unjustifiable.”