KATHMANDU, March 5: The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, claiming the Special Court's verdict on the illegal land transaction at Lalita Niwas is erroneous.
The CIAA expressed dissatisfaction with the Special Court's decision in the corruption case, where it found that government land within the Lalita Niwas had been unlawfully registered in the names of certain individuals and organizations, including the defendant, Kaladhar Deuja.
The CIAA filed the case in the Special Court on February 5, 2020. On February 15, 2024, the Special Court acquitted some individuals and partially acquitted others. The CIAA has reintroduced former ministers Bijay Kumar Gachhadhar, Dambar Shrestha, and Chandradev Joshi as defendants.
Lalita Niwas land grab scam: PMO facilitated issuance of stay o...
The CIAA argued that the court made the verdict without properly analyzing the evidence. It stated that the authorities who gained illegal benefits by improperly influencing employees should face prosecution based on the evidence. The CIAA also said that the court should have found the defendants guilty based on the evidence and imposed punishment and fines, but this did not occur.
The CIAA presented examples from some neighboring countries, arguing that the Special Court's verdict was erroneous and unjust. CIAA spokesperson Narhari Ghimire explained the appeal filed against the Special Court's decision in the Lalita Niwas case.
The CIAA concluded that irregularities had occurred on 136 ropanis of land. It identified 60 government employees, 32 landowners or mortgagors, 18 individuals involved in acquiring government land through commission, and 65 individuals accused in confiscation cases. The Special Court found only some employees and others guilty, while it acquitted political figures and former high-ranking officials.
The CIAA cited certain facts, legal provisions, and verdicts made by courts in neighboring countries when filing the appeal. The CIAA stated in its appeal, “In the case of the defendants, the Special Court's verdict suggests that the Council of Ministers made the original decisions collectively. It appears that the acquittal was based on the idea that, despite some involvement from the defendants, malice could not be proven.”
The CIAA's appeal also stated, “In criminal offenses, no one can be exempted from criminal liability or acquitted based on their position, status, influence, or authority. When someone commits a criminal offense, no one should be acquitted under the guise of political decisions.”
The CIAA argued that the Special Court wrongly acquitted the defendants by presenting them as members involved in making policy decisions. It stated that the acquittal was incorrect. The verdict also cited a second basis for acquittal, claiming that the defendants' involvement in the decision did not demonstrate malice. The CIAA argued that this basis did not align with the law.
The CIAA objected to the Special Court's interpretation, stating that it failed to differentiate between collective decisions made by the Council of Ministers and individual decisions made by departmental ministers. By overlooking the facts of the case, the verdict incorrectly categorized the evidence against the defendants as policy decisions, which the CIAA disagreed with.
