Kathmandu

Contempt of court case against prime minister, CA chairman

Contempt of court case against prime minister, CA chairman

By Himalayan News Service

Supreme Court of Nepal. Photo: THT/File

KATHMANDU: An advocate on Wednesday filed a contempt of court case at the Supreme Court against some top leaders, including Prime Minister Sushil Koirala and Constituent Assembly Chair Subas Chandra Nembang, for allegedly speaking against an interim order issued by the Supreme Court. The SC on Friday had stayed the implementation of the 16-point agreement, saying that as per Article 138 of the Interim Constitution, federalism should be settled by the Constituent Assembly. Advocate Laxmi Prasad Pokharel filed the contempt of court case against PM Koirala, CA Chair Nembang, Minister for Law and Justice Narhari Acharya, Nepali Congress Vice President Ramchandra Paudel, CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli, UML Vice Chairman Bam Dev Gautam, Unified CPN-Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Chairman of Constitutional-Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee Baburam Bhattarai, Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum-Democratic leader Bijay Kumar Gachhadar, Constitution Drafting Committee Chairman Krishna Prasad Sitaula and CA member Aindra Sundar Nembang. Advocate Pokharel has stated that the statements from the defendants that they will not respect the court order has created negative feelings among the general public about the judiciary, misled the public and lowered the esteem of the judiciary. The petitioner has cited newspaper reports, and one of them is CA Chair Nembang’s statement in Pokhara that ‘SC order cannot stop constitution making process’. Some top leader associated with the four parties that were signatories of the 16-point agreement, have been made defendants for issuing a joint press statement on the day the interim order was issued. “As per the Interim Constitution, the right to interpret laws and the constitution solely rests with the Supreme Court. It is the presiding judge’s authority to deliver justice or issue an order in a case. Defendants have no authority to say that they will not abide by the order, nor do they have the right to threaten impeachment against the justice who issued the order,” advocate Pokharel has said.