BIMAL GAUTAM
KATHMANDU, June 23: With the appointment of Krishna Bahadur Mahara as home minister, about 250 individuals charge-sheeted for crimes have submitted applications at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) demanding withdrawal of cases pending against them at district courts across the country.
According to a source at MoHA, altogether 27 files related to such demands are currently at the ministry. "We have received 27 files from nearly 250 accused," said the source, adding, "Most files are related to cases of murder and attempted murder".
The number of files and number accused seeking amnesty differ as up to 326 persons are charge-sheeted in a single case.
Family members, relatives and friends have submitted files at the ministry on behalf of the accused, seeking amnesty in cases which are in the course of hearings at the district courts.
The source told Republica that while most of those seeking amnesty were involved in murder and attempted murder, others accused of arson, possession of arms and ammunition, sedition, offences under the Public Offence Act and the like have also filed for amnesty.
"We are reviewing the files but won´t recommend to government to withdraw cases if the nature of the crime is serious," the source added.
Those seeking official pardons include Dinesh Subba and others (for abduction), Rambabu Sah and others (arms and ammunition), Ramnandan Pattel (attempted murder), Rajesh Jha (sedition), Jayachanda Sah Teli (public offence), Haribabu Rokaya (murder), Sittal Prasad Chaudhary and 10 others (murder), Shyam Prasad Yadav (charge unknown), and Mohanlal Chaulagain and 26 others (murder).
Similarly, Nandu Raya Timilsena and five others (robbery), Rameshwor Shrestha and nine others (murder), Kishwor alias Karna Bahadur Dhami and six others (murder), Tej Bahadur Hamal and seven others (murder), Khadk Chand and 15 others (murder), Indra Bahadur Lama and four others (attempted murder), Tekraj Joshi and seven others (murder), Suresh Sah Teli and four others (murder), and Lekhnath Dahal and 17 others (attempted murder) have also submitted files at the ministry for withdrawal of their cases.
Also applying for amnesty are Mohasafit Mahato and seven others (murder) and Badri Bajgain and 12 others (public offence).
Under the legal provisions, the authorities have to seek prior consent from the district court concerned before withdrawing a criminal case against anyone. According to the procedures, MoHA can send the file to the Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLJ) and the latter has to check the grounds for withdrawal of the case. If MoLJ gives its nod, the file goes to MoHA, which then forwards it to the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers for cabinet approval. Following a cabinet decision, the file goes to the Office of Government Attorney. The office has to take prior consent from the district court concerned before giving anyone official pardon in a criminal charge.
Published on 2011-06-23 03:00:52
Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32665
Friday, June 24, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Supreme Court Interim Order on Agni Sapkota
Supreme Court Interim Order on Agni Sapkota
by Kanak Mani Dixit on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:50pm
Regarding the Supreme Court's Interim Order on the PIL against appointment of Agni Sapkota as Minister of Information and Communication:
On 21 Februay, the Court did not give us petitioners the interim order we sought to force Agni Sapkota out of his ministership as a murder (kartabya-jyan) accused. However, the double bench made up of Justices Ram Kumar Prasad Shah and Prakash Wasti did make the following points which fills the petitioners with hope:
a) the Court spoke clearly against the morality of Mr. Sapkota continuing as minister, sought his cooperation in the murder investigation, but leaving it to Mr. Sapkota to take the personal decision to resign from office;
b) the Justices rejected the defendants' central claim that 'transitional justice' required suspension of regular criminal procedure on conflict era cases; the Court stated unequivocally that the law and justice system should continue to pursue the alleged perpetrators of the conflict period, a ruling that will have positive impact other cases pending against alleged perpetrators in the state security forces and among the former insurgents.
d) the Court expressed dismay at the delay by the police in pursuing the case filed by Purnimaya Lama, widow of Arjun Lama, against Agni Sapkota and others; it asked the Kavre District police to re-energise itself in the investigation against Arjun Lama, and to report every 15 days to the court via the Attorney General's Office.
These directives do create conditions for Mr. Sapkota to resign on moral grounds, the petitioners believe; the order also sets a precedent on the pursuance of conflict-era abuse, which the Maoist side argues are protected under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and to be kept pending for the future Truth and Reconciliation Commission. On the whole, the petitioners believe that this is a victory for civil rights, even if the bulk of the media has only focussed on the single point - that the court did not ask that the minister be relieved as demanded by the petitioners. That much is true, but there is much else in there in the Court's order.
The petitioners have now demanded that Sapkota resign on moral grounds on a full reading of the Supreme Court's interim order. I also believe that the arguments in court by our lawyers, such as Hari Phuyal, Tikaram Bhattarai, Satish Kharel and Govinda Bandi, marked a high point in human rights argumentation in the court system of Nepal. Similarly, the order by Justices Shah and Wasti is marker stone in terms of establishing jurisprudence vis-a-vis conflict era excess. We must now continue to fight to bring perpetrators to justice, whether they be Maoist cadre or state security personnel.
As soon as I can get a pdf file of the court order, I will upload it, as it provides interesting reading. In the meantime, I would direct you to the Annapurna Post of today, for significant experts from the order.
Kanak
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/kanak-mani-dixit/supreme-court-interim-order-on-agni-sapkota/163316097069407
by Kanak Mani Dixit on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:50pm
Regarding the Supreme Court's Interim Order on the PIL against appointment of Agni Sapkota as Minister of Information and Communication:
On 21 Februay, the Court did not give us petitioners the interim order we sought to force Agni Sapkota out of his ministership as a murder (kartabya-jyan) accused. However, the double bench made up of Justices Ram Kumar Prasad Shah and Prakash Wasti did make the following points which fills the petitioners with hope:
a) the Court spoke clearly against the morality of Mr. Sapkota continuing as minister, sought his cooperation in the murder investigation, but leaving it to Mr. Sapkota to take the personal decision to resign from office;
b) the Justices rejected the defendants' central claim that 'transitional justice' required suspension of regular criminal procedure on conflict era cases; the Court stated unequivocally that the law and justice system should continue to pursue the alleged perpetrators of the conflict period, a ruling that will have positive impact other cases pending against alleged perpetrators in the state security forces and among the former insurgents.
d) the Court expressed dismay at the delay by the police in pursuing the case filed by Purnimaya Lama, widow of Arjun Lama, against Agni Sapkota and others; it asked the Kavre District police to re-energise itself in the investigation against Arjun Lama, and to report every 15 days to the court via the Attorney General's Office.
These directives do create conditions for Mr. Sapkota to resign on moral grounds, the petitioners believe; the order also sets a precedent on the pursuance of conflict-era abuse, which the Maoist side argues are protected under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and to be kept pending for the future Truth and Reconciliation Commission. On the whole, the petitioners believe that this is a victory for civil rights, even if the bulk of the media has only focussed on the single point - that the court did not ask that the minister be relieved as demanded by the petitioners. That much is true, but there is much else in there in the Court's order.
The petitioners have now demanded that Sapkota resign on moral grounds on a full reading of the Supreme Court's interim order. I also believe that the arguments in court by our lawyers, such as Hari Phuyal, Tikaram Bhattarai, Satish Kharel and Govinda Bandi, marked a high point in human rights argumentation in the court system of Nepal. Similarly, the order by Justices Shah and Wasti is marker stone in terms of establishing jurisprudence vis-a-vis conflict era excess. We must now continue to fight to bring perpetrators to justice, whether they be Maoist cadre or state security personnel.
As soon as I can get a pdf file of the court order, I will upload it, as it provides interesting reading. In the meantime, I would direct you to the Annapurna Post of today, for significant experts from the order.
Kanak
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/kanak-mani-dixit/supreme-court-interim-order-on-agni-sapkota/163316097069407
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)