KATHMANDU, April 3: A writ petition has been filed at the Supreme Court (SC) against the decision of the Attorney General not to prosecute Rabi Lamichhane, chairman of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP), in a case of passport misuse. Advocate Yuvraj Paudel, who previously filed a writ in Lamichhane's citizenship dispute, filed a fresh writ petition at the Supreme Court on Sunday against the decision of the Office of the Attorney General not to prosecute him in the passport dispute.
Paudel, however, said that the registration of the writ was not completed because the SC Administration asked him to correct one point in the writ petition. The SC Administration has requested to remove point number 8 of the writ petition.
“In that particular point, I included the issue of verifying the citizenship certificate of Rabi Lamichhane,” Poudel said, adding that the writ will be registered on Monday.
In point number 8 of the writ petition submitted by Paudel on Sunday, the question has been raised whether or not Lamichhane has regained Nepali citizenship after completing the process according to Section 11 of the Citizenship Act, 2063 BS (2006) and Rule 11 as well as after the submission of a letter of relinquishment of American citizenship. In that point, an interim order has been requested to prevent Lamichhane from exercising his political rights as a Nepali citizen until all the documents on this matter have been submitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court administration disagreed with this.
Writ petition filed against Rabi Lamichhane
Earlier, Paudel filed a writ in the Supreme Court claiming that the certificate of Nepali citizenship used by Lamichhane was illegal.
Lamichhane took the certificate of Nepali citizenship for the first time in 1994. After that, he went to America and took American citizenship without giving up his Nepali citizenship on February 21, 2014. He also had an American passport. Lamichhane, who came back to Nepal, claimed to have renounced American citizenship and used the old Nepali citizenship that he took in 1994. By opening a party based on the same citizenship, he was elected from Chitwan-2 in the House of Representatives election on November 20. In the citizenship dispute writ, the Supreme Court ruled in January that Lamichhane's citizenship was invalid. Two days after the Supreme Court's verdict, Lamichhane acquired a new citizenship of Nepal from the district administration office in Kathmandu on January 19.
Passport dispute
Lamichhane courted controversy for obtaining a Nepali passport on May 27, 2015 using his citizenship certificate of Nepal while he was already an American citizen and his US passport was still valid, which Lamichhane himself has admitted.
Few days after the judgments of SC on the issue of citizenship, the writ petitioner Paudel claimed that Lamichhane had obtained a Nepalis passport illegally and misused it, and demanded an investigation and action against him in line with Section 5(b) and section 21(a)of the former Passport Act, 2024BS (1967) and demanded action at the District Police Office, Kathmandu. Complaints were filed in District Administration Office Kathmandu and Office of the Attorney General Kathmandu.
Based on the complaint, District Police Office Kathmandu investigated and submitted a report to the Attorney General’s Office. Based on the same report, on March 20, the Attorney General's office decided not to pursue a case against Lamichhane.
Paudel approached the Supreme Court with a writ against the decision of the Attorney General's office. In the writ, he has made the Attorney General's Office, Attorney General Dinmani Pokharel, District Administration Office Kathmandu, Department of Immigration, Nepal Police Headquarters, Kathmandu Valley Police Office Election Commission and RSP Chairman Lamichhane as opponents.
Stating that the OAG had made a mockery of the rule of law by deciding not to proceed with the matter that is factually confirmed in the writ petition, Paudel claimed that the decision of the Attorney General not to proceed with criminal proceedings contrary to the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence against those who have attained power is biased. He said that the law is only applied for the general public.
Therefore, Paudel has demanded a mandamus order against the decision of the Attorney General and to overturn the decision of OAG, and to investigate and prosecute the case in an impartial manner.
