Kathmandu, March 29
Following the arrest of CPN-UML Chairperson and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, debates have emerged both in support of and against the move. Constitutional and legal experts have expressed differing views on whether the arrest is lawful or politically motivated.
In this context, former judge Krishna Jung Rayamajhi, who chaired the commission formed to investigate the 2006 People’s Movement, shared his views with Onlinekhabar regarding the arrests of Oli and Lekhak:
He said that since the government has decided to implement the commission’s report, the arrest and subsequent investigation are likely part of that process. Police have taken him into custody for investigation, and the court may extend the remand period. Questioning and recording of statements will follow as authorities seek to understand the facts.
He emphasised that under Nepal’s justice system, cases are not filed arbitrarily. Police, who have the authority to file cases, examine all aspects, gather evidence, and analyse it before making necessary decisions. Government attorneys may also instruct further evidence collection if required.
He stated that the process of implementing the report must not be flawed, but whether it is done quickly or slowly is not the main issue. Previous commissions had submitted reports that were never implemented, contributing to the country’s problems. Therefore, if the government is now acting on a report, it should not be criticised outright.
Rayamajhi added that there is a need to implement such reports, and the government cannot remain inactive. Some argue that cases should have been filed earlier when those individuals were in power, but whether a case should proceed depends on the findings of the investigation.
He clarified that cases are filed only if evidence is found. There is no issue in proceeding with an investigation; if evidence is established, the government will file a case. Police analyse the evidence, and government attorneys proceed accordingly.
He further explained that a commission report primarily contains facts and evidence. It cannot be the sole basis for punishment; further investigation is necessary.
For now, he said, it should be understood that the government has begun implementing the report. Based on this alone, it cannot be termed a procedural violation or a crackdown. Since cases cannot proceed without evidence, innocent individuals will not be punished.
He concluded that even if cases are filed, courts will decide based on facts and evidence. If cases are filed without evidence, courts will not convict anyone. Therefore, there is no need for concern or suspicion regarding the implementation process at this stage.
