UML’s Pradeep Gyawali Criticizes Acting Chief Election Commissioner Over Election Security Remarks

UML Deputy General Secretary Pradeep Gyawali has sharply criticized Acting Chief Election Commissioner Ram Prasad Bhandari, calling his comparison between current weapon-related incidents and the 2008 peace-process period misleading and historically inaccurate, raising concerns about election security interpretations.

CPN-UML Deputy General Secretary Pradeep Gyawali has sharply criticized Acting Chief Election Commissioner Ram Prasad Bhandari for comments he made relating to election security.

Bhandari had suggested that Nepal had previously conducted elections even when “thousands of combatants and a large number of weapons were outside.” Gyawali called this an unreasonable and misleading comparison.

Gyawali argued that drawing a link between a few recent weapon-related incidents and the highly sensitive security environment of the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections is fundamentally inaccurate.

According to him: “Special security arrangements created through political consensus during the peace process cannot be compared with today’s criminal incidents.”

Writing on social media, Gyawali reminded the Commissioner that Maoist combatants and weapons at the time were kept under strict control and monitored by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN). He pointed out that:

Maoist weapons were stored in containers with a dual-key security system,Combatants were kept inside 28 designated cantonments, And UNMIN maintained direct oversight of the entire arrangement. Gyawali acknowledged that some incidents had occurred prior to the Constituent Assembly election, but said linking those events with the present situation is baseless.

He further remarked that Bhandari’s statements had created unnecessary confusion regarding the security environment. Gyawali stated: “It is surprising to hear such an irresponsible statement from someone holding a position so sensitive to national peace and security.”

He added that discussions about an electoral process of national importance require factual clarity and proper historical understanding—standards he believes were not met in Bhandari’s recent comments.