CJ-led Government-08

Siddhi B Ranjitkar

Currently, students unions, civil society leaders, and victims of the repression of the people’s movement of 2006 have been strongly opposing the recommendation made by the Constitutional Council (CC) for the appointment of Lokman Singh Karki to the chief of Commission on Investigation into Abuse of Authority (CIAA). First, the four-party political mechanism made the recommendation for appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA, and then the CC rubber stamped it, and forwarded it to the president. Advocate Om Prakash Aryal registered a petition at the Supreme Court of Nepal on May 7, 2013 against the recommendation made for the appointment of Karki. However, Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal administered the oath of office and secrecy to Karki immediately after the president approved the Karki’s appointment on May 8, 2013.

Who is Lokman Singh Karki? Karki was part of the disgraced administration of the former king Gyanendra, who had been a disgrace to the nation. Karki became the smartest among the administrative officials in the administration of Gyanendra to bend and even break the Civil Service Act, and get promotion to one higher up position after another. He entered into the civil service at the level of the second-class gazette officer, and ended up being the chief secretary of the Gyanendra’s administration.

Following the rules and regulations, everybody starts at the third-class gazette officer, and then by virtue of promotion, every able person goes on to the second class, first class and finally to the especial class of the civil administration supposedly based on the merits.

Karki got the entry at the second-class gazette officer by the direct order of the former disgraceful king Gyanendra. So, if you were a king then you could bend or break the rules; you were above the law. Then, Karki quickly rose higher up in the administration again breaking the rules and regulations, and finally became the chief among the special class administrative officers. Thus, he became the chief secretary of the Gyanendra’s administration. The irony is that the four-party political mechanism, the government and the president have simply emulated the Gyanendra’s notorious administration to appoint the controversial figure like Karki to the most responsible office of the chief of the CIAA.

Karki was one of the four sons of one of the richest men called Bhupalman Singh Karki in Biratnagar. He set up a number of significant awards before his death. So, Lokman Singh had had enough of everything except for the honor in the society. He needed honor in the society. He used his money power to get the entry into the Gyanendra’s administration, and then quickly rose to the highest position in the administration.

Karki was the chief secretary to the council of ministers during the people’s movement of 2006. He was one of the major decision makers on repressing the people’s movement of 2006, and injuring and killing so many peaceful demonstrators in 2006. He had been held accountable for the murder, and injury of so many peaceful demonstrators during the people’s movement of 2006. His hands had been smeared with the blood of the peaceful demonstrators. He was one of the demonic administrative officials of the dishonored Gyanendra.

Why Karki wanted to be the chief of CIAA? Karki had been a disgraceful man in the society after he joined the Gyanendra’s administration, and attempted to suppress the people’s uprising in 2006. He had committed the sins of killing the brave Nepalis that had sacrificed their beautiful lives for ending the despotic monarchy. A case against Karki was filed at the CIAA but the case did not move forward. Karki wanted to atone for all his past sins. That could be done only getting the position of the chief of the CIAA; that is his belief. CIAA is the constitutional body set up for bringing the corrupt officials and the abusers of authority to justice. Karki had been both the corrupt officer, and the abuser of the authority. Karki's belief is that by virtue of being the chief of the CIAA, people would forget his sins.

Who recommend Karki for the chief of CIAA? If we were to believe Chairman of UCPN-Maoist Prachanda, the CPN-UML had put forward the proposal for appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA, and then the UDMF supported it. Certainly, then the UCPN-Maoist and the NC supported Karki’s appointment. Then, the four-party political mechanism sent its recommendation to the CC for appointing Karki. The CC had no choice but to abide by the order of the four-party political mechanism of the UCPN-Maoist, NC, CPN-UML, and UDMF. Chairman of the CC was the adopted child of the four-party political mechanism. Blindly following the order of the masters, Chairman Khil Raj Regmi sent the recommendation for appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA to President Dr Ram Baran Yadav.

President Yadav was supposed to appoint Karki on Monday, May 6, 2013 but President Yadav also was a smart politician, and played the drama of studying the constitutional and legal implications of appointing Karki. Whether President was playing part of the drama or was serious about not appointing Karki in view of his past sins, and of the concerns of the victims of the repression of the people’s movement of 2006 by the then administration headed by Karki, remains to be seen.

CPN-UML had been the main actor for putting forward the Karki’s appointment. Now, the CPN-UML has been one of the main opponents to the Karki’s nomination. General Secretary of CPN-UML Ishwor Pokharel accompanied by a team went to the office of the president on May 6, 2013, and registered a petition at the office of the president for not appointing Karki. This was another drama played by the CPN-UML guys. Speaking to the opponents of the Karki’s appointment, Chairman of CPN-UML Jhalanath Khanal said that he also had realized that the Karki’s appointment was wrong but then it made no sense to oppose it once it had been already done; however his party would not muzzle the opponents of the Karki’s appointment.

General Secretary Ishwor Pokharel could have asked his boss Chairman of CPN-UML Jhalanath Khanal for going to the four-party political mechanism, and tell leaders of other three parties that his party was not for the Karki’s appointment. General Secretary Ishwor Pokharel did not dare to do so. He waited until the case reached the president. He played the drama of opposing the Karki’s appointment.

NC leaders did not play any drama in this case. President of NC Sushil Koirala brush off the opposing voices of some members of the central committee against the Karki’s appointment. He stood up to his decision on for the appointment of Karki. His junior Dr Ram Sharan Mahat had even said in one of his public speeches that the appointment of Karki was the decision of the central committee of his party. However, on May 10, 2013, President of NC Sushil Koirala apologized to the public for appointing Karki to the chief of CIAA, and shifted the accountability to the president saying he had anticipated President Dr Ram Baran Yadav would not approve the Karki’s appointment but the president also hurriedly approved it. What an excuse Koirala had, can you believe that such leaders are going to run our country?

None of the leaders and cadres of UCPN-Maoist and UDMF had raised any voices against the appointment of Karki. They were solidly behind it. Former Prime Minster Dr Baburam Bhattarai had even said that Karki was the most experienced man; so he was the most appropriate candidate for the chief of the CIAA. These guys did not care about the feelings of the victims of the repression of the people’s movement of 2006, and of the people, who wanted to bring the criminals including the Karki to justice.

Why the four-party political mechanism opted for Karki? Karki had been expert in handling the politicians in his favor. He repeated the trick he played to enter the Gyanendra’s administration. Probably, he presented a jackpot to the leaders of the four-party political mechanism. Political parties particularly the NC and the CPN-UML desperately needed some revenues whether it was legal or illegal. Nepalese donors had been tired of giving money to the political parties. Karki had enough money. He did not see the use of money without having a significant position in the administration. He did not dare to enter the political party. Karki needed a position in the constitutional body that was for investigating the abuse of authority and corruption whereas the political parties needed money. They made a mutual benefit.

Victims of the repression of the people’s movement of 2006, members of the civil society, professionals organizations and students unions have been opposing the Karki’s appointment. Except for the students Unions, all organizations have been opposing peacefully. They have issued statements opposing the appointment of Karki. They have held sit-in rallies. However, students unions have been violently opposing the Karki’s nomination. They have stopped vehicular traffic going against the law, and causing immense troubles to regular commuters in protest against the Karki’s appointment for the last three days in Kathmandu. The traffic police have to divert the vehicles to other destinations causing traffic chaos. The students unions also have called for the shutdown of the Kathmandu Valley on May 9, 2013 but it was withdrawn not to cause the problems of commuting to the revelers of the Mother’s Day. If they were to enforce it then it would be the gross violation of the law, and the fundamental human rights of the common folks to do their businesses and travel without hindrance.

If Karki were to get the appointment from the president it would expose the double standards of the UCPN-Maoist leaders. These guys have been claiming that they are for changes. They have even put forward the slogan of building a ‘new Nepal’. They have charged the NC and the CPN-UML with opting for the status quo. The UCPN-Maoist leaders say that their ultimate goal is to defeat the status quo of the NC and the CPN-UML. But how they could make changes in administration putting back the same guy of the past repressive administration? They have to answer to the public.

Advocate Om Prakash Aryal registered a petition at the Supreme Court of Nepal on May 7, 2013 against the Karki’s appointment. Advocate Aryal had attempted to register it even on Sunday, May 6, 2013 but the Court refused to register it stating it lacked certain documents. Advocate Aryal has stated in his petition that appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA goes against the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007.

The Supreme Court had squashed the former petition against the appointment of Karki after the court received the reply from the CC that the process of the appointing Karki has not started, yet. The Supreme Court stated that no need of ruling in this case as the CC has not even started off the process of the appointment of Karki. Obviously, this ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal paved the way for the CC to submit the recommendation to the president for appointing Karki.

President Dr Ram Baran Yadav approved the appointment of Karki after playing a drama of studying the constitutional and legal implications of appointing Karki. Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal Damodar Prasad Sharma sworn in Karki as the chief of the CIAA immediately after the approval of the president on May 8, 2013.

President Yadav found to appoint the man needed to bring to justice for his repression of the people’s movement of 2006, to the chief of the CIAA, constitutional, and logical. In doing so, President Yadav shared the blame for the faulty decision made by the four-party political mechanism on appointing Karki, and then chairman of CC Regmi simply rubber stamping it, and finally the president approving it.

Now, the shameless and once-demoralized man has been the head of the CIAA. Thus, Karki even though was corrupt and abuser of authority has the authority to investigate the corruption, and the abuse of authority committed by our moral-less politicians while they were in power. If Karki were really a strong man, and he were not a puppet of the four-party political mechanism, he should start the investigation into the corruption suspected by the president while former Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai was in power. Dr Bhattarai had publicly challenged the president to prove his suspicion of corruption. Now, Karki should immediately take up the investigation into the corruption during the reign of Dr Baburam Bhattarai.

A speech delivered at the time of taking office on May 8, 2013, Karki said that his business at the CIAA would be transparent, and he would work as a watchdog for all the ministries but he did not say anything about the corrupt political parties, and the non-transparent deals of the political parties, and about the large outstanding irregularities in the state accounts.

On May 9, 2013, Karki invited the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, and heads of Department of Customs, Department of Revenue, Department of Investigation into Money Laundering and Department of Inland Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to his office, and he told them that he would be watching their activities. Karki has hit the trove of treasure: the departments that could bring him the money he spent on getting the office of the chief of the CIAA the most. Karki also abused the office of the chief of the CIAA calling the secretary to the Ministry of Finance, and the heads of the departments of the offices that generate huge revenues to his office. Has he the authority to do so? Certainly, he has not the authority. He could go to their offices and sealed them only if they were suspected of the abuse of authority or corruption.

Whether Karki stepping into the office of the CIAA would demoralize the highly motivated and morally sound staffs, and whether Karki would be able to atone for his sins remains to be seen. So far, the staffs of the CIAA had been successfully put four former ministers: all of them belonging to the NC in jail, and return the state money they had stolen from the state treasury during their tenures of ministers. If Karki were to atone for his sins, he should go deeper into the assets of the political leaders that wore flip-flops in 1990 but currently living in highly luxurious bungalows; and the politicians as thin as Ram Chandra Poudel in 1990, but they had put on weights more than three times their weights in 1990.

The four-party political mechanism has bullied the negative but real public opinion against Karki, and made the chairman of IECM Khil Raj Regmi and President Yadav as their agent for achieving their goals. The public opinions had been clearly against the appointment of Karki. Civil society members had demonstrated in front of the presidential residence-cum-office while the oath taking ceremony was going on in the office of the president on May 8, 2013. The police had taken some of the civil society leaders in custody for the time of the ceremony. Students went on a rampage and attempted to wreck state-owned vehicles protesting against the appointment of Karki.

The 33 political parties including the CPN-Maoist-Vaidhya and the Madheshi People’s Rights Forum-Nepal had belatedly opposed the appointment of Karki. They had rallied at the office of the president for an hour on May 9, 2013. It was only a token protest. Chairman of Madheshi People’s Rights Forum-Nepal said that appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA, the president, the IECM, and the four party political mechanism had lost the credibility.

The UCPN-Maoist claimed to have fought for the proletariat had give in to the wishes of the chief of the Gyanendra’s administration: the foe of the proletariats. For what I don’t know exactly but I strongly believe that it must be for money. The UCPN-Maoist has forgotten the welfare of proletariats. It has focused on grabbing the power by any possible means. The Maoism has been only the mask, and the communist party has been only the means for the UCPN-Maoist leaders to reach the pinnacle of power. Now, they are neither Maoists nor the communists but they are clearly the opportunists.

Similarly, the NC has been neither the Democratic Party nor the party of the democratic minded people. They also have been the opportunists. They were not for accepting the democratically elected government to hold elections but agreed on forming a new government of former bureaucrats headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Madheshi leaders also accepted the Karki’s appointment for the reasons difficult to understand if they also were not for the money Karki had obviously presented. How could they achieve their goal of representing the interest of the Madheshi people if they were to sell their power for money?

CPN-UML has been neither a communist party nor a democratic party. It has been the party of a bunch of moral-less people. They could do and say anything only to get into power. They also have accepted the Karki’s appointment for money if not they have to say in public what for they did accept the appointment of the so tainted man like Karki.

Thus, all the four political parties through their political mechanism laundered Karki and made him apparently clean, and ultimately the chief of the CIAA. Now, Karki in turn might launder all the corrupt and abusers of authority in the Nepalese administration, and the politics. Corrupt politicians and former ministers that had been implicated in corruption, and their cases were pending at the CIAA could have sound sleep after Karki became its chief. He is one of you guys, and he would leave no stone unturned to save you from corruption cases. Be patient.

What the adventurous the leaders of the four-party political mechanism have been to grab the illegal money in the broad daylight? If they have not done so they should explain it to the Nepalis in public. I firmly believe that they must have pocketed a large sum of money appointing Karki to the chief of the CIAA. Nepal has many sincere and able people suitable for the office of the chief of the CIAA but the four-party political mechanism ignored them, and embraced the tainted man if not for money then for what?

President Yadav has ignored the rule of law appointing Karki to the chief of CIAA while the petition against the Karki’s appointment has been registered and pending at the Supreme Court of Nepal. President Yadav ignored the law and the constitution to follow the decision of the four-party political mechanism. He had played a drama of studying the legal and constitutional implications of the Karki’s appointment but he did not wait for the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nepal on the Karki’s appointment.

Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal Damodar Prasad Sharma sworn in Karki to the chief of the CIAA even though the case against it has been pending at the Supreme Court of Nepal. Acting Chief Justice needed to tell the Nepalis what would happen if the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case were to go against the Karki’s appointment.

The gang of four political parties, the chairman of the IECM, and the president jointly has mutilated the rule of law. They have taken the country to state of the last stage of the Gyanendra’s rule in 2005 and 2006. It would certainly encourage the political parties that have been saying that they have no constitutional means to oppose the current activities of this gang, and they needed to indulge in the unconstitutional means to oppose the gang.

The four-party political mechanism with the support of the president surely would bully the 33 parties including the CPN-Maoist-Vaidhya, and force the elections to a new constituent assembly, as the mechanism had bullied the public opinion against the appointment of Karki. Nepalese voters would need to vote the same moral-less politicians of the four–party mechanism. They would get the mandate whether Nepalis would like it or not but Nepalis would hardly get justice in return. The international community would applaud the election victory of such Nepalese politicians.

Judging from the appointment of Karki, the leaders of the four-party political mechanism have simply replaced the hereditary rulers that had neither cared for the people’s welfare nor the rule of law.

May 11, 2013