Two the then Supreme Court (SC) judges – Krishna Kumar Verma and Bali Ram Kumar – had to step down in 2004 as they acquitted an international drug smuggler Gordon William Robinson, who was on the Interpol´s most-wanted list. Similarly, Judicial Council´s recent recommendation to impeach SC Justice Rana Bahadur Bam, case of SC Registrar Ram Krishna Timilsina´s alleged involvement in corruption, among others, has put a question mark on our judiciary´s integrity necessitating reforms to combat corruption from within and build its capacity for timely delivery of verdicts on corruption cases.
Even the Transparency International’s (TI) Global Corruption Report 2007 had underlined "ineffectual functioning" of the court as one of the obstacles to reducing control in Nepal. This is enough to reflect on our courts´ lethargic judicial process for hearing corruption cases in particular. Prompt delivery of verdicts by courts on corruption cases especially in countries mired in systemic corruption often does not happen. One of the common risks associated with the judiciary in fragile democracies such as Nepal is their misuse for political reasons with protracted delay on corruption lawsuits. And taking advantage of the corrupt system and its lengthy process, many corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are making every effort to influence the court decisions.
As per Clause 16 (1) of the Special Court Act 2002, corruption lawsuits have to be decided within six months from the date of filing. Contrary to this, many of the important cases have been lying in the court for years.
Every one is equal under the law in democracy. This noble principle, however, does not materialize effectively when corruption suspects are wealthy businessmen or prominent politicians. The "big fish" in Nepal have often escaped the judicial ´booby trap´ with influence of money and power while the "small fries" are falling on the hot pan. Our courts have almost failed to prosecute bigwigs of political corruption deals like Lauda Air, Chase Air and LC scandals. The special court had acquitted 10 high-profile persons including the then minister in Lauda scam citing the inadequacy of evidence after considering the petition for seven years since the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) filed the case in 2001 for corruption of Rs 389 million.
The special court has been convicting a few junior government officials on corruption charges for hefty illegal properties. Some of them were those 22 government revenue employees whose residences were raided around midnight by the CIAA in 2002. But now, many of the CIAA-filed cases against the high-profile politicians, bureaucrats and security chiefs have been either dropped on technical grounds of "timeframe" or are in the dock for years. Lengthy judicial process and impunity granted to big corruption deals have badly affected our anti-corruption efforts.
PROTRACTED PROCESSES
The special court convicted Niranjan Prasad Chalise, the then joint-secretary, on corruption charges of Rs 20.6 million. Why did it take almost six years to decide on Chalise’s case filed in 2004? Why could not the court deliver the verdict much earlier? The judicial track record tells us much about its inability to deal with corruption cases effectively. Particularly in cases of illegally earned properties, the special court scrapped many important corruption cases on flimsy grounds from January 2006 to July 2008 setting a bad precedent. Those cases involved political heavyweights, high-ranking police officers and senior bureaucrats, who all enjoyed "judicial mercy" at the show of money and power.
The CIAA had filed dozens of big corruption cases against politicians, bureaucrats, police generals and others at the special court. As per Clause 16 (1) of the Special Court Act 2002, corruption lawsuits have to be decided within six months from the date of filing. Contrary to this, many of the important cases have been lying in the court for years. The delay in settling cases can be taken as one of the factors that allow the accused to buy enough time to politically and monetarily influence the court decisions.
Among the court rulings on corruption lawsuits over the past few years, the court verdicts have explicitly favored the defendants. About three dozen corruption cases against high-profile personalities such as Govinda Raj Joshi, Khum Bahadur Khadka, IGP Achyut Krishna Kharel, Moti Lal Bohara, Padam Prasad Pokhrel, Tararaj Pandey including many others were scrapped on grounds of inadequacy of evidence and timeframe after years of judicial scrutiny. The question is: Why did it take so many years for the special court even to drop these cases on technical grounds?
Except in the cases of fake certificates, the court has not settled a single case so far within the timeframe. Among the cases of 22 revenue officials filed at the special court by the CIAA, verdict has been given only on a few cases. One might question why these cases have remained unresolved for such a long time. There are some reasons; firstly, the defendants are not summoned on time; secondly, the special court has only one bench to hear the cases, and thirdly, the court-hearing dates are intentionally postponed while they can´t be put off more than twice.
CLEARING THE BACKLOG
The backlog of corruption cases at the SC also painfully evidences judicial incompetence in dealing with corruption lawsuits. Out of 12,000 backlogs at the SC, 339 corruption cases are waiting for the final verdicts. More than 100 corruption lawsuits are four years old. There are 60 cases of illegally earned properties. The delay in pronouncing verdicts by the SC on corruption cases has irreparably affected the corruption campaign and de-motivated the anti-graft body like the CIAA. As corruption cases are very sensitive by nature, they must be processed in a professional and independent manner without unreasonable delays.
The CIAA had filed an appeal at the SC against the decision of the special court on corruption charges of former minister Rabindra Nath Sharma on Nov 8, 2007 but the SC has not heard the case even once since then. By now, the defendant, Sharma, has already died. Similarly, the special court had convicted former minister Chiranjibi Wagle on corruption charges who later lodged an appeal at the SC in 2008, which is yet to be decided.
However, in a turn of event, lately the SC summoned Govinda Raj Joshi citing the special court´s verdict on his case as "a serious fault of law" which was scrapped on technical ground of timeframe four years ago. The SC should brave up and expedite the process to unpack all those corruption cases scrapped years ago by the special court and bring them to book. The other more interesting fact is that defendants of the four corruption cases have already died before the SC could pronounce its verdicts. This adequately explains that lengthy judicial process has undermined our anti-corruption crusade.
The court has been giving more priority for fresh petitions because of which cases of appeals are endlessly put aside. Ineffective management of corruption cases by the court is also a reason for the delay. It would be difficult for a single bench to hear more than five cases in a day, and cases that are put after five in number are never heard due to lack of time. This has also delayed the court verdicts.
The lawyers are also responsible for the delay as they tactfully lobby to put their cases at the end of the hearing list and intentionally keep putting off ´dates of hearing´ in view of the bench in which his/her case has been allotted for hearing. Legally, a case can´t be deferred more than twice while the lawyers postpone "case hearings" times and again under different pretexts. To check these practices, effective monitoring can help systematizing records of such frequently postponed cases so that they would not be adjourned more. Similarly, in view of the increasing backlog and slow disposal rate, a single bench needs to be set up at the SC to hear corruption cases only. Formation of the special bench would speed up clearing backlogs and add momentum to the anti-corruption campaign with timely delivery of verdicts.
Even a study commissioned by the SC has highlighted procedural delays, lack of transparency and prevailing corruption as the main areas needing immediate reforms in judiciary. This study has further necessitated long-sought reforms in Nepal’s judicial sector. In our fight against corruption, judicial reforms are too urgent to delay, too important to neglect. But, will they kick off anytime soon?
Related story
Reforming Anti-Corruption Legislations
