Earlier this week Nepal Bar Association staged various protests over the Department of Revenue Investigation’s (DRI’s) raid on Shambhu Thapa’s law firm, Legal Advisors Forum. The lawyers wore black masks and matching bandana to protest the raid. When the Professional Alliance for Peace and Democracy (PAPAD), Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) and an established media house joined the chorus, the public was nearly led to believe the DRI had overstepped its jurisdiction. In their view, Thapa couldn’t have done anything wrong: He was an active participant in People’s Movement II, he is a guardian of democracy and to question his tax status is to defame this person without any blemish. Even President Ram Baran Yadav chided Prime Minster Khil Raj Regmi for not preventing DRI from carrying out the ‘unlawful’ raid. [break]
But thanks to alternative media sources, the shady sides to Thapa’s personality have been exposed, clearing the illusion that he is a man of high moral integrity.
It has been revealed that Thapa was the one who pleaded for innocence of corrupt politician Khum Bahadur Khadka and notorious gangster Dipak Manange. He advocated on behalf of a mastermind of murder of an eight-year old boy, Bibek Luintel, seven years ago. Meanwhile, Inland Revenue Department has disclosed that Thapa’s law firm has not submitted any income statement for several years. IRD claims Thapa intended to evade tax by covering up real income.
(Republica)
Thapa’s apologists have advanced three explanations in his defense. One, he is a lawyer and has every right to fight anyone’s case—whether the client is a murderer, a corrupt politician or a notorious gangster. The second argument is that DRI didn’t follow due process and therefore it should compensate Thapa if it fails to prove his culpability. The third is that the raid was driven by revenge motive of CIAA chief Lokman Singh Karki and Prime Minister Khil Raj Regmi whose appointments Thapa had contested at the Supreme Court. On closer scrutiny, however, these arguments do not hold much water.
Granted that Thapa is a lawyer and can take up any case. But there is also a moral question. Should a lawyer voluntarily defend the corrupt and murderers and yet enjoy the title of ‘upholder of justice’ and ‘protector of democracy’? Regarding DRI’s jurisdiction, it is a government body fully authorized to raid any firm or investigate a person if it suspects tax evasion. One may question DRI’s process, if at all, but not the constitutionality of the raid. Invoking motive and intention is weak defense. One cannot audit people’s intention and in the legal field, what matters is legality and constitutionality, not telepathic intuition. The black coats should know this better than anyone else.
Thapa’s case has once again dragged Supreme Court into controversy. It is uncommon for the SC to issue interim order even in highly controversial political and rights violation cases, the same day a case is filed. Surprisingly, SC asked DRI to return all the evidences taken under control from Thapa’s office the same day he summoned the court. It has sent a dangerous message that high profile people with strong political backing are more equal than others and that powerful lawyers, doctors and rights activists with strong political nexus, whom CK Lal mockingly calls “Permanent Establishment of Nepal,” are above the law and beyond DRI’s jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, this cohort includes the majority of tax evaders.
Lawyers charge hefty sums but do not feel obliged to pay the state their due. Next are doctors and private hospitals that either do not pay tax at all or extract tax money from patients. Private hospitals are required to pay five percent service tax out of the money paid by the patients. But they slap this service tax on the patients. Some private hospitals—Medicare, Norvic and Om, to name only a few—charge 13 percent VAT from their clients. They have been continuing with such excesses on the back of strong political patronage. It is remarkable that none of the constituent parties in the High Level Political Committee—which is functioning like a de facto government—spoke in DRI’s defense. Instead, former Speaker and UML leader Subas Nembang pleaded Thapa’s innocence and accused the government of trying to destroy the judicial system.
The general public cannot speak out against doctors, lawyers and powerful people. There are compelling reasons for this. Doctors and lawyers are the ones whom they turn to during difficult times. A patient must go to a doctor—however high his fees—when ill. And they turn to lawyers at times of crisis. Perhaps this is the reason Kathmandu intelligentsia kept mum over Thapa’s case. Or they were perhaps scared of contempt of court. (Senior journalist Bijay Kumar Pandey had been charged with the same for questioning the Supreme Court’s role in elevating a sitting chief justice to the post of prime minister). One wonders if this precedent discouraged media fraternity and intelligentsia to advise Thapa to face the trial and prove his innocence. It looked like they were trying to give him a clean chit before DRI could complete its investigation.
We live in times when business cartels defy the state, rendering government mechanisms weak and dysfunctional. Traders, business people and entrepreneurs all are bent on maximizing profits by cheating customers. There is no punitive action against rule breakers; instead the government gives in to their unjust demands.
The anti-DRI lobby has degraded DRI’s morale and tried to show that the state is helpless in front of powerful people. From now on DRI will have to think twice before carrying out raid against powerful people, no matter how much tax they have evaded. Meanwhile, Thapa faces a moral trial. Given that more than a hundred lawyers are advocating on his behalf, SC might declare DRI’s move unconstitutional and absolve Thapa. Following this DRI could stop the investigation altogether. But Thapa won’t be able to enjoy the same degree of public respect in the days ahead. If he wins, they will say it is because SC and DRI surrendered to NBA and government pressure, if he loses, he will be proven a tax evader. A more respectable way out (if he is really clean) would have been for him to face the trial and clear his name once and for all.
People also have serious doubts over the President’s questionable interference and Supreme Court’s role in the whole affair. They deserve an explanation from both the head of the state and the apex court.
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com
Related story
Bill of surveillance
