While the suspended chief justice argues the impeachment motion is now null and void with the end of the lower house’s term, some disagree. NHRC has weighed in as well.
Suspended Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana’s attempt to return to the Supreme Court on Sunday has failed. Yet the move also stirred up a hornet’s nest in terms of its impact on larger politics.
Rana had attempted to resume his duties as chief justice on Sunday, even as the Impeachment Recommendation Committee concluded that there was ample ground to impeach him.
The committee had submitted the report to Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota on Saturday recommending that Rana be impeached.
Arguing that the impeachment motion became ineffective with the end of the term of the House of Representatives at midnight on Saturday, Rana had informed the Supreme Court that he would return to his duty from Sunday.
The tenure of the House of Representatives ended without deciding the fate of the suspended chief justice.
After the news of Rana’s plans to return to the Supreme Court spread, the government deployed security personnel at the court while lawyers under the banner of Nepal Bar Association gathered inside the court premises to foil his possible entry.
“Rana had informed the Supreme Court about his intention to return and the information was passed on to us. So we gathered at the court from early in the morning to stop him,” said Gopal Krishna Ghimire, the president of the Nepal Bar Association.
Earlier, an emergency meeting of the Nepal Bar Association had decided to disallow suspended Chief Justice Rana from returning to the apex court citing the Impeachment Recommendation Committee’s report that recommended his removal.
“Rana is a suspended chief justice. Unless he gets a clean chit, there is no chance of his return,” Ghimire said in a brief interview with the Post. “Any attempt by him to return will make a mockery of the judiciary and we will protest against it.”
The government has deployed security personnel at Rana’s residence, which adjoins the prime minister’s residence at Baluwatar. The police were seen checking every person and vehicle entering and exiting Rana’s residence.
Speaking to journalists at the Supreme Court on Sunday, Bar President Ghimire said the new House of Representatives elected by the November 20 elections would take up the impeachment motion.
The constitution, however, states that any bill that originated in the lower house but has yet to be passed by both Houses of Parliament becomes ineffective with the end of the lower house’s term.
However, the constitution is silent on any kind of impeachment motion. Legal experts and lawmakers have differing views over whether the motion moves on to the new House.
A total of 98 lawmakers including from the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and the CPN (Unified Socialist) had registered an impeachment motion against Rana on February 13, levelling 21 charges against him.
Supreme Court Bar Association Chairman Purna Man Shakya said after he and his colleagues learnt that Rana was planning to return to office they also gathered at the court in an attempt to stop Rana from returning to office.
Shakya said that Rana should not have attempted to return since he remains suspended.
“Impeachment is a very serious matter,” Shakya told the Post. “The next House will discuss the impeachment motion. Such is international practice and Rana should have understood as much.”
The report of the Impeachment Recommendation Committee was endorsed on Saturday by the committee’s majority with six members in the 11-member panel voting in favour of an impeachment. Four members from the UML and one from the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party registered an eight-point note of dissent against the majority report.
Constitutional experts are divided over whether Rana could rejoin his office without the motion being settled.
Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari said that as the lawmakers who registered the impeachment motion have lost their posts, there is no possibility of the new House taking up the motion.
“Rana was suspended through a wrong process,” Adhikari said. “He could have been suspended if the motion had got into the parliamentary process. The process has stopped following the expiry of the lower house’s term.”
Adhikari added that the charges against Rana were important and sensitive to judicial independence, but as the charges could not be settled, his suspension is now ineffective.
“The motion has already become ineffective. There is no meaning to stopping him now. The government can’t check his movements,” Adhikari said. “If the suspension is not revoked, he can go to the court with a petition to resume office.”
Another constitutional expert, Bhimarjun Acharya, on the other hand, said that even if the House tenure ends, the motion against Rana will remain as Parliament’s property until his tenure ends. “The issue should have been concluded by the House on time. That did not happen, which was a mistake. The motion will now remain dormant,” he said.
According to Acharya, Rana should not attempt to rejoin the apex court forcefully. “That will be against the law.”
Acharya echoed Adhikari, saying the government also can’t put someone under house arrest, until and unless they are a serious threat to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. “Now, as it is not possible to settle the motion, the way out is to wait until the end of his tenure. But there is no chance of him resuming office,” he said.
CPN-UML chair KP Sharma Oli and National Human Rights Commission have also condemned Sunday’s security deployment inside the court premises and at Rana’s residence.
Oli accused the government of putting Rana under house arrest.
Speaking to journalists, Oli said, “Is it right in a democracy to encircle someone’s house and put him under house arrest? What should he do when the government has failed to substantiate the charges?”
Meanwhile, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has asked the authorities not to obstruct Rana’s movement saying that it is the state’s responsibility to respect the fundamental rights of its citizens such as the freedom of movement and the right to privacy.
“These rights should not be infringed upon under any pretext,” the commission said in a statement. The constitutional body issued the statement after monitoring the situation at Rana’s residence.
