RAYAMAJHI COMMISSION'S REPORT
|
|
|
Perverted Opinion
Rayamajhi Commission's report sparks a new round of controversy
By KESHAB POUDEL
"I will expose all the hidden events, if the persons indicated in the report are not punished," threatened former judge Krishna Jung Rayamajhi. At a time when many people are questioning the legality of Rayamajhi Commission's report, chairman of the commission issued a threat to coerce the government.
 |
Rayamajhi (right) presents report to PM GP Koirala : Role under question
|
Rayamajhi has shown his biasness from the first day of the formation of five member commission, which was divided at the time of presenting its report, against certain individuals and institutions.
Rayamajhi's recent threat against the government following the formation of high level cabinet committee under the chairmanship of deputy prime minister K.P. Sharma Oli is another indication of how biased he was while documenting the report.
Toeing the line of Rayamajhi, some communist-leaning human rights activists have already demanded that the report should not be dumped like Mallik Commission report and some populist media, knowingly and unknowingly, are blaming then attorney general Motikaji Sthapit., a lawyer with a credible integrity, that he subverted the Mallik Commission Report of 1990.
But the stand taken by Sthapit was not what is being projected here. His opinion was based upon the law which needed independent investigation for the prosecution. The government of that time had taken a political decision not to disturb the police machinery of that time. And as an attorney general Sthapit could not proceed by excluding the police machinery. Interestingly, none of the political parties questioned his report at that time.
In a country where the ruling party leaders are violating laws and constitution in accordance to their whim, nobody needs to read the laws and legal procedures. This is not the only case.
Though Rayamajhi Commission was constituted under a specific act known as Public Inquiry Act 2026 to inquire on the matter of pubic importance, Rayamajhi has been speaking as if he has power to investigate, prosecute and punish like that of erstwhile high level Royal Commission for Corruption Control.
Past experiences have shown that success of such commission depends not only on proper selection of the head of commission but also on their devotion and dedication to discharge their role in public interest without fear or favor.
Unfortunately, from Chairman Rayamajhi to other members, all of them are politically motivated and biased persons. Nobody can expect impartial report from such commission, which has made every effort to harass persons in bureaucracy, civil service and army.
Rayamajhi - a lawyer-turned-judge - after his retirement was involved in the popular uprising as a member of non-governmental organization. As such he was a biased person to head the fact finding commission. Rayamajhi was coordinator of Civil Society for Peace, which actively took part in Janandolan II. From the day of his appointment, Rayamajhi was biased against the persons whom he has to examine to prepare a report against their deeds and actions.
Time and again, he was issuing populist statements loaded with threats and vengeance. Ultimately, the report has come suggesting making a law of retrospective effect on crimes and punishment.
In the past, the s even judges under Supreme Court including then chief justice Bishwonath Upadhayaya and judge Krishna Jung Rayamajhi has written a decision whereby they have stated that such commission's role is only to work for fact finding. Submitting their opinion under the article 88.5 of the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal in the issue of Dashdhunga accident, Rayamajhi had agreed with the opinion that the commission is just a fact finding body. But when his own report was submitted, Rayamajhi is violating those legal norms.
"Such commissions are ad hoc and are formed to enquire on the fact of public importance. This is a universal trend to constitute such commission," said a senior advocate and eminent constitution lawyer Kusum Shrestha. "Such commission's function is to work for fact finding. After completing its work, such commission submits its report to the government."
Lawyers argue that there require further investigation to finalize the prosecution. Even the government has constituted a high level committee to decide how the report can be proceeded with.
"We will prosecute the person indicted in the commission's report in accordance with the law," said attorney general Yagya Murti Banjade. "We have to wait now for the cabinet committee's decision on it."
According to the act, the evidences collected and acquired by the commission cannot be referred as evidence in the court. Thus, first and foremost duty of the act of such commission is to find an actual fact on the basis of evidence. After determining the fact, the commission may recommend its opinion.
In his own several judgments in the past, Rayamajhi had committed that time crime could not be prescribed by law of retrospective affects. He followed different jurisprudence as a judge and now as an activist. There were two more lawyers in the five member Rayamajhi Commission, who were divided among themselves on this very matter of suggesting making a law for the act which was not punishable previously.
The government at present is no better qualified and equipped in law and the legal norms than the members of that commission to get rid of the public accusation like in popular case without considering its consequences. Knowledgeable persons in law and its practice in Nepal are horrified by the trend it would trigger in making laws and delivering justice.
This is not only the court of this country but the courts of any country which have the same stand on this question. How can a person be punished when the act was not a crime when it was supposed to have occurred?
Though poor in economy Nepalese courts are familial with the judicial concept of benefit of doubt and the presumption of innocence but the way former senior judge of Supreme Court delivered his judgment has surprised many.
Sundh Calls For Better Participation Of Women
The chief of the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal , Lena Sundh, has urged all Nepali actors take action to put into practice the measures set out in Resolution 1325, both for the protection and promotion of the human rights of Nepali women and girls.
Addressing the Third National Consultation with Women Human Rights Defenders in the capital on Tuesday, she said that implementation of Resolution 1325 is important for the protection and promotion of the human rights of Nepali women and girls and to ensure that there is increased representation of Nepali women at all decision-making levels of Nepali institutions and mechanisms involved in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA).
“Women human rights defenders have an essential leadership role to play at the community and national level in this historic transition to peace and democracy in Nepal ,” she added. She further said that the early steps after the Jana Aandolan (People’s movement) give us cause for concern that key Nepali actors have not yet seriously considered the lessons, which Resolution 1325 is based upon, as both the Seven Party Alliance and the CPN (Maoist) negotiating teams lacked women’s participation.
She also expressed dissatisfaction over lack of representation of women of seriously under representation in key institutions established after the success of April movement, referring to the appointments at the Interim Constitution Drafting Committee, the High Level Commission of Inquiry (the Rayamajhi Commission), the Ceasefire Code of Conduct Monitoring Committee.
She also urged the Government to do better and ensure that women’s representation is not merely tokenistic in the appointment of members at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). “Women’s leadership and active participation in the peace process, at all levels, is good for peace in Nepal ,” she added.
Resolution 1325 also represents years of struggle by women activists in countries around the world, including Nepal, to ensure that action be taken to redress the conditions that result in women and girls suffering in conflict, and to make sure that women are able to participate fully as actors, and leaders, in conflict prevention, management and resolution.
