Kantipur
Excerpts of Interview with Krishna Jung Rayamajhi, a former Supreme Court justice who headed the judicial commission that investigated abuse of power and misuse of the state exchequer during Gyanendra Shah’s authoritarian rule. Kantipur, 6 November
Kantipur: It has been almost a decade after the judicial commission headed by you submitted a report to the government, implicating several high-profile politicians, bureaucrats and security officers in abusing their authority to suppress the 2006 Democracy Movement. Are you satisfied with the implementation of the report?
Krishna Jung Rayamajhi: Not at all. Some of the authorities whom we found guilty of abusing power were later promoted, and they retired without being punished. Others were conferred medals and awards by the government. And some are still in power. The suspended Chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Lokman Singh Karki was also named for perpetrating excesses and abuse of power against pro-democracy campaigners during Gyanendra Shah’s reign. But the same leaders whom Karki once targeted anointed him as the head of the anti-corruption agency.
Why do you think the government couldn’t implement your report?
Those who were involved in criminal activities have political protection. They reach out to the leaders using their connections to get off the hook. Some might have even bribed political leaders.
Some have also argued that a person should not be convicted just on the basis of an inquiry commission report. What is your take as a former Supreme Court justice?
Our Commission had a mandate to investigate royal excesses, abuse of power and violation of human as well as civil rights by thoroughly examining evidence. And we just did that. It was up to the government to further investigate the cases, and punish or free those named. But the government trashed our report.
Did you also recommend action against Gyanendra Shah?
We have concluded that Gyanendra Shah was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and hence guilty. Tulsi Giri and Kritinidhi Bista were Vice Chairmen of the Council of Ministers and were also found guilty.
What actions were recommended against them?
We had recommended warning and dismissal against those found guilty of abusing authority to suppress the pro-democracy movement. They were to have been given a fair chance to defend themselves, and were to be punished only if found guilty. If the government had implemented the report, Lokman Singh Karki would never have been appointed. Implementation of the report could have benefitted the accused, probably including Karki.
How so?
Had the government implemented our recommendations some of those found guilty would have got a clean chit. But they were neither investigated nor punished on the basis of our report. The Big Three chose the man found guilty as the CIAA Chief. It is shameful how, those that ignored the report and got him to fill in the position of the CIAA chief have now come together to focus their energies on impeaching him.
Why do you think the Big Three chose Karki?
It looks like political leaders were not genuinely interested in investigating excesses of the royal regime. They formed a judicial commission only to douse public anger.
Political leaders argued that Karki was getting a second chance to reform himself.
Only an individual with a high moral character and integrity should be appointed CIAA Chief. This CIAA Chief was only fulfilling his own interests. He even obstructed the Supreme Court from issuing summons to him, which is wrong and has been counter-productive.
How do you view the role of the Chair of the then-Council of Ministers?
As a former justice, I find it unfortunate that Karki was made the CIAA Chief when Chief Justice Regmi was the Executive Head of the country. He definitely knows what worked in Karki’s favour. He knows who lobbied for Karki, and from where. To the common people, Karki’s appointment was bizarre and baffling.
Are you hinting at a foreign hand in Karki’s appointment?
The political events surrounding Karki’s appointment clearly indicate that. There is absolutely no need for an independent and sovereign country to rely on other countries to make its decisions.