National 3 (Spotlight Weekly)

Needless Controversy

Like all other state institutions, the RNA, too, has the constitutional right to explain its case before the apex court. Then, why is there such a hue and cry?

By A CORRESPONDENT

Nepal’s mainstream media, lawyers and human rights activists, who have never missed a chance to blame security personnel for not being able to protect the citizens, have suddenly stepped up their attack against the country’s oldest institution - RNA.

The RNA was recently criticized in two cases in which it was blamed for challenging the apex court.

In the first case, human rights activists and lawyers denounced the RNA alleging that it did not accept the order issued by apex court to release some illegal detainees said to be in its custody.

The second uproar was related to the reply the RNA gave to the Supreme Court over the matters related to a decision on court martial of one Major Prajawalla Basnet, who had filed a petition at the apex court challenging his dismissal order given by the army court.

In Basnet case, RNA had replied to the Supreme Court’s order (issued a month ago) in which the apex court had demanded a file of army court and Ministry of Defense endorsement. In its reply to the apex court, the army had clarified that it was not bound to present the decision to the court in accordance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990.

The army cited the Article 88.2 (a) of the Constitution. According to the Article 88.2 (a) of the Constitution, “the Supreme Court shall not be deemed to have power under this clauses to interfere with the proceedings and decisions of the Military Court except on the ground of absence of jurisdiction or on the ground that a proceeding has been initiated against, or punishment give to, a non-military person for an act other than an offence to the army.”

The Royal Nepalese Army claims that major Basnet’s dismissal is not an issue that can be petitioned in the civil court. Although the apex court is yet to decide on the matter whether it falls under its purview or not, the media has already begun its trial.

From the incumbent president of the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) to its former president, all of them have condemned the army’s reply and termed it as a violation of constitution. “RNA’s reply is not in accordance to the constitution,” said Harihar Dahal, former president of Nepal Bar Association and lawyer of Basnet.

“The army cannot interpret constitution,” shouted Shambhu Thapa, the incumbent NBA president.

Like all other organs, the army, too, has the right to defend its case in the court. “To defend its case the army can cite the articles and provisions of the constitution and laws. If that is so, how can its recent actions be unconstitutional?” asked a lawyer.

Whether the spokesperson of the apex court or the legal practitioners, all seem to be forgetting the legal and constitutional procedures. Likewise, in cases of army not accepting the court’s letter, there are due procedures by which the court can compel the army to do so.

In view of the current media trial, the uproar against the RNA seems to be well planned to tarnish its image and demoralize it. If media continues to attack the army, the day might not be far away when the army might start its own FM and daily newspapers to present its case.

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
Meeting Of The Minds

Although the two stalwarts of Nepali Congress – current president Girija Prasad Koirala and former president Krishna Prasad Bhattarai - have many differences in political issues, they share a common view on country’s major issue.

Upon return from his health check up in India, founding member of Nepali Congress Krishna Prasad Bhattarai outright rejected the idea to hold the elections for the constituent assembly.

“There is no sense to debate on the Constituent Assembly. Since we have got a good constitution, we don’t need constituent assembly,” said former prime minister Bhattarai who led the government when the present Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 was promulgated.

Replying to a query of journalists, Bhattarai also stressed on the need for the Congress party unity. “I am in favor of party unity like Girijababu,” said Bhattarai in good humor.

Despite many differences particularly on each other’s style of functioning, Koirala and Bhattarai share similar views vis-à-vis the constituent assembly. “First of all, there is a need to activate the present constitution,” said Koirala, who also returned from India this week. “Constituent assembly is not our agenda.”

This is for the first time after a long gap when the two senior Congress leaders Bhattarai and Koirala spoke in similar tones.