KATHMANDU, June 12: The issue that the government has not yet taken ownership of the report of the Balkrishna Panthi-led task force formed to find a long-term solution to the Bhutanese refugee problem has been raised in the court.

Putting forward his arguments, the lawyer of Tek Narayan Pandey, the suspended secretary of the Government of Nepal, raised this issue during the custody debate at the District Court Kathmandu. Advocate Ram Ghimire, who argued in defense of Pandey on Sunday, claimed that both Ram Bahadur Thapa and Balkrishna Khand had not taken the ownership of the report of the Panthi-led task force when they were home ministers.

"While the then Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, Secretary Prem Kumar Rai received this report, they did not take the ownership and proceeded with the implementation. After this, even when Balkrishna Khand was the home minister and Tek Narayan Pandey was the secretary, they did not take its ownership,” Advocate Ghimire said, “Rather, without owning that report, another five-member sub-committee was formed under the leadership of Jhapa's Assistant CDO Chomendra Neupane.”

In such a situation, he argued that it is irrational and unsubstantiated to say that the report of the Panthi-led task force was prepared with the involvement of Secretary Pandey.

Similarly, Advocate Ghimire also argued that a report not owned by the government is not a government document. “A sub-committee has been formed under the leadership of the assistant CDO due to doubts about the Panthi-led task force’s report. A sub-committee was formed after receiving information that financial transactions had also taken place. How can a report not owned by the government become a government document?” he further asked.

It is alleged that details were prepared by adding the number of fake Bhutanese refugees by adding a schedule to the report of the Panthi-led task force with the involvement of Secretary Pandey. Based on this accusation, all 30 accused have also been charged with the crime of forging government documents.

Advocate Ghimire, while denying Pandey's involvement in the matter of adding a schedule to the Panthi-led task force’s report, suspected that it might be the work of a section of the police or a division of the Ministry of Home Affairs. He said, “This fake job may have been made by a section of the police involved in the investigation.”

Advocate Ghimire argues that both the Panthi-led task force and the Neupane-led sub-committee were formed according to the government's policy. In the meantime, Judge Prem Prasad Neupane asked a question about the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Nepal has stopped taking Bhutanese refugees to third countries. Then Advocate Ghimire replied that the government is still in favor of sending the remaining refugees to resettlement rather than keeping them. He claimed that even now, Nepal government's policy is to send Bhutanese refugees to third countries instead of keeping them in the country.

Advocate Ghimire claimed that the distribution of identity cards of Bhutanese refugees, which is said to be under the case, was done before Pandey assumed the role of Home Secretary. “Before Tek Narayan Pandey came to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the work of distribution of identity cards and studies had also been done. These things were already done before he was transferred to the home ministry,” he said.

Advocate Ghimire also made the argument that if Pandey had any ill-intention, he could have hidden all those reports. He said, “If he had any ill-intentions, he would have concealed these reports when he left the Ministry of Home Affairs.”

On the other hand, another advocate Ganesh Regmi demanded that Pandey's evidence obtained through electronic means should not be given legal recognition. Regmi, who argued in defense of Pandey, requested the court not to take the conversations on mobile phones and social networks as evidence, saying that the Constitution of Nepal itself guarantees the right to privacy.

Advocate Pandey claimed that the investigating officers tried to collect evidence against Section 293 of the Criminal Code, 2074 and claimed that the evidence collected by the police against the provisions therein was invalid. In this case, Pandey has been prosecuted on the basis of the 'viber' conversation between Secretary Pandey and Keshav Dulal, who is said to be the leader of the gang, while Khand has been prosecuted on the basis of the conversation between Pandey and former Home Minister Balkrishna Khand.

Apart from Ghimire and Regmi, advocates Sharad Koirala and Jagat Prakash Joshi argued in defense of suspended Secretary Pandey on Sunday.

Senior advocate and former attorney general Raman Shrestha, who was supposed to argue the defense on behalf of Pandey, did not appear in the courtroom on Sunday. It is said that Shrestha, who is also preparing to argue the defense on behalf of former Home Minister Khand, is absent as both arguments will be held simultaneously.

Similarly, Ishwari Bhattarai, Avatar Neupane, Baburam Dahal and Prabin Subedi also argued the defense on behalf of Sandip Rayamajhi, the son of former deputy prime minister Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, one of the defendants in the case.

The case in which the defendants have been charged with five different offenses is being heard by the District Court Kathmandu since last Sunday (June 4). In the beginning, the plaintiff's lawyers argued for three days, while the defendant's lawyers have been presenting their defense since Wednesday. After the defense argument is over by next Tuesday, a lawyer from the District Public Prosecutor's Office, Kathmandu, will make a counter argument on Wednesday.

After that, the court will decide whether the accused should be remanded into custody for pre-trial detention or be released on bail or release on their own recognizance.

 
• Bhutanese_refugee_scam
 
• Govt_yet_to_own_report_of_task_force