On the evening of October 18, 2024, Rabi Lamichhane, a sitting member of Nepal’s House of Representatives and former Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, was arrested at 6:45 PM. His arrest has rose debates on political motivations, judicial transparency, and fairness in Nepal’s legal system. The late-night timing of his arrest, the overnight transport to Pokhara, and the strange circumstances surrounding his judicial hearing have led many to question the motives and processes behind the case.
Arrest timing: Why after dark?
Lamichhane’s arrest at 6:45 PM raises a critical question – why do high-profile political arrests and decision making often happen after sunset? In Nepal, political decisions and significant arrests are commonly executed after dark, away from the public eye and scrutiny. Arrests during late hours, such as Lamichhane’s, limit public and media visibility, casting a shadow over transparency. Daylight arrests, on the other hand, would allow for a more open and accountable process.
This issue is not new in Nepal, but the timing of Lamichhane’s arrest give rise to concerns about whether the authorities intentionally scheduled it to avoid immediate public attention. The frequent use of after-hours operations raises suspicions about political motivation and underhanded tactics.
Overnight transport: Was it necessary?
After his arrest, Lamichhane was transported via road to Pokhara, arriving at around 3:00 AM. The overnight transport was carried out even though the next day was Saturday, a public holiday when courts in Nepal do not function. This raises an essential question: why was the arrest and transport necessary at this late hour when the suspect could not even be presented in court until Sunday?
If the suspicion was that Lamichhane might try to evade arrest or disappear, this could have been addressed by holding him in a secure location in Kathmandu for few hours. And then, why not begin the transport early the next day, ensuring transparency and avoiding a middle-of-the-night transfer (esp. with this road conditions in Nepal given the disaster that followed) ? This urgency is hard to justify, especially given that the judicial process was not immediately active. Instead, the move appears to further fuel skepticism around the intentions behind the arrest and subsequent proceedings.
Judicial process: A missed opportunity for transparency
The handling of Lamichhane’s court proceedings only added to the growing unease. While most of the judiciary was on extended leave following the Dashain festival, Judge Krishna Jung Shah, who returned to court from Nepalgunj on the same day (Friday) at 3 PM, straight away took charge of the case.
Judge Shah, previously stationed at the Arghakhanchi District Court before his transfer to Pokhara on Shrawan 25, 2081 (decision 4, line 6 under the file, reference 3); after the current change in collision of the government sparking more controversies of it being political decision.
He reportedly entertained police officers, including the Superintendent of Police (SP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), in his private chambers before the case was officially presented (Reference 4 and 5). This interaction has understandably sparked concerns regarding the impartiality of the judiciary.
The question arises: why couldn’t this case have been deferred until Sunday when other judges were back in session, allowing for a more neutral presentation?
Was it necessary to fast-track the case under these specific circumstances? By conducting proceedings in this manner, the image of the judiciary being independent and free from political influence is significantly diminished. Public trust in the judicial system is already unsettling, and this handling of the case only worsen the doubts about its integrity.
Comparison to Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest in India
Lamichhane’s arrest is being paralleled with the arrest of Indian political figure Arvind Kejriwal. Like Lamichhane, Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, was arrested under controversial circumstances, leading to accusations of politically motivated actions by the ruling party. The arrest of Kejriwal, widely seen as an anti-corruption crusader, stirred political debate in India and sparked questions about the impartiality of the judiciary. The parallels between Kejriwal’s and Lamichhane’s arrests highlights the potential for increasing politically motivated arrests in South Asia.
In both cases, the timing and method of arrest raise concerns about whether the judiciary is being used as a political tool. Kejriwal’s case, like Lamichhane’s, was widely criticized as an attempt to suppress opposition voices. Lamichhane’s supporters argue that his arrest mirrors Kejriwal’s experience, furthering the belief that political motivations may be at play in both instances.
The arrest of Rabi Lamichhane raises more questions than answers. From the suspicious timing of the arrest to the hurried and opaque court proceedings, there are serious concerns about how justice is being administered in Nepal. If the judiciary is to maintain public trust, it must show that it is not swayed by political pressure or the need to protect its own reputation at the expense of fairness and transparency.
As the public watches this case unfold, it will serve as a litmus test for the strength and impartiality of Nepal’s legal system. Will the courts rise to the challenge of delivering justice impartially, or will they continue to erode public trust with questionable practices? Time will tell, but the need for reform has never been more clear.
