Fifty-six MPs, including myself, had filed a vote of no-confidence against our parliamentary leader, Girija Prasad Koirala. When we filed our motion we had stated that we were doing this because Koirala had been unsuccessful on the three issues that he himself had claimed he would successfully tackle.
When he became prime minister, he had said that he would solve the Maoist crisis, control corruption and provide security in the country. After nine months we have analysed how his government has been functioning and have concluded that he has not been successful in solving any of these three. This is why we filed a vote of no-confidence and we feel that we filed it at the right time.
The procedures for election in parliament and a parliamentary party are different and Koirala has committed a crime by enforcing parliament election rules on the parliamentary party. In parliament, MPs are elected from different parties. Their election symbols, their election papers are all different. They sit in groups separately. There has to be some difference in the way a parliamentary vote is conducted, and elections to a parliamentary party.
In the present case, for his selfish needs Koirala has forced one set of rules on another and he did not even table the rules before enforcing them. We showed our displeasure and boycotted the elections. So how can this be called an unsuccessful no-confidence motion? We had stated that a reign of terror would be unleashed if open voting took place, but who listened to our pleas?