National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

‘If One Is Aware Of Constitutional Obligation Of Attorney General, Such Controversy Never Arises’

— Badri Bahadur Karki

Karki recently resigned from the post of Attorney General of the Kingdom of Nepal. He spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issues surrounding his resignation. Excerpts:

Why did you tender your resignation round this time and so suddeny?

I accepted my appointment in May 1998 rather reluctantly when it was offered to me by the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. But once I took up the responsibility of the post of Attorney General of the Kingdom, I dedicated myself for the cause of justice and at the service of the citizens of this country. I am fully satisfied with all the good works of far reaching consequences which I initiated during my tenure. My decision to quit the post, in fact, was taken on 31 May last year, the day when the Special Bench of Supreme Court delivered verdict on a writ petition filed by me against Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), in my capacity as Attorney General. Although the honorable Supreme Court gave a landmark verdict in favor of the 'Functional Independence and Professional Immunity of the Attorney General' as conferred by Article 110(2) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, unfortunately, the verdict denied to grant immediate relief to me for no judicious reason whatsoever. For me who always resolutely stood and fought for the cause of justice and rule of law in the country it was not possible to comprehend and continue in view of the 'denial of justice' and its long term serious negative impact on the freedom of Attorney General and his subordinates for long time to come. And I found the verdict, with due respect, going against my professional conscience and self respect as well. On the very day of the verdict I had stopped attending the office and prepared my resignation letter for submission next day. But the fate had something terrible in the store -- the national tragedy of the first June (Royal massacre) compelled me to continue and postpone my decision to quit for some time. Then came the change of government and the new Prime Minister Deuba desired me to continue as he had embarked upon a failed 'negotiation with Maoists leadership' and subsequent proclamation of Emergency. After the endorsement of the Proclamation of Emergency, I let know the Prime Minister my earlier decision to quit around third week of February. Finally, it has been accepted by His Majesty the King effective from fourth of April. It is for the cause of the dignity, honor and professional independence of the Attorney General and my own self-respect I decided to quit, something so dear and precious to me.

Why an attempt was made to link your resignation with the promulgation of Royal order under Article 115(7) of the Constitution?

I have explained fully about the background of resignation and have already denied any link between two separate events. The concocted reports in a section of the press saying that I was for stringent restrictions against the freedom of press and political and civil liberty during emergency is a blatant and shameless lie. It was on my advice and initiation the 12 point original draft order was finalized by an informal committee headed by Minister Wagley Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka, MP Radheshyam Adhikari, the law secretary, the home secretary (now chief secretary) also know my stand, advice and draft. For what happened later on within the cabinet and what has finally been promulgated, I had nothing to do.

There is also some reports that you were against some of the provisions of the Anti-corruption bills?

As an Attorney General I was under oath to tender advice on the correct legal and constitutional position of any bill including the CIAA and anti-corruption bills to the government and the Parliament. I have done nothing but fulfilled my obligation entrusted to me by the Constitution. If one is fully aware of the constitutional obligation of an Attorney General such controversy or confusion never would arise. But unfortunately, the so-called civil society is so far being dominated by the populist and seasonal views of the professional amateur politicians and political professionals. There has been total famine of enlightened and mature professional debate and discussion on serious constitutional issues. This only goes to show that our journey towards the constitutionalization of young democracy shall remain arduous, long and painful for many more years.