KATHMANDU, OCTOBER 29
Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal has disclosed that Inam Sapkota, an alleged middleman now in police custody, had routinely pressured judges on sub-judice cases by claiming direct backing from the prime minister, the chief of army staff, and the inspector general of police (IGP).
Justice Phuyal further revealed that when judges raised concerns regarding Sapkota's activities, the IGP's Secretariat merely advised them to 'stay alert,' adding that Sapkota's eventual arrest was only made possible after the Nepali Army stepped in to coordinate.
In response to the media coverage surrounding the scandal, Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and Justice Shrikanta Paudel issued separate statements today, forcefully denying any contact or connection with the individuals named in the reports. Justice Phuyal acknowledged having met Sapkota, but maintained that he and his colleagues were the ones who ultimately filed the complaint that led to the alleged fixer's apprehension.
HIGH-LEVEL CLAIMS AND GEOPOLITICAL POSTURING
Speaking to reporters today, Phuyal explained that Sapkota had introduced himself as a multi-faceted operative - claiming to represent an embassy of a close partner country, work as a medical doctor and maintain ties with foreign intelligence agencies. Sapkota asserted he had direct access to Baluwatar (the prime minister's official residence), top military leadership and the police chief, while spreading assurances that judges would be shielded from impeachment through his influence.
According to Phuyal, Sapkota approached members of the bench during a period of heightened anxiety over the appointment and potential impeachment of the chief justice. He systematically built rapport by discussing geopolitics, good governance and judicial independence - frequently dropping claims like, 'This is what the Americans want' and 'This is India's position.'
"For the first two months or so, he spoke strictly of positive, constructive matters," Phuyal recalled.
COERCION AND CASE INTERFERENCE
The dynamics shifted when Sapkota began attempting to influence pending litigation. In the habeas corpus petition involving Rohit Gupta of the Himalayan Re-Insurance, Sapkota had allegedly invoked the prime minister's name to press for Gupta's continued detention. Rejecting the pressure, a division bench comprising Justice Phuyal and Justice Paudel had ordered Gupta's release on Rs 20 million bail.
Phuyal stated that an enraged Sapkota had subsequently confronted the judges at the Hotel Himalaya, warning that the prime minister was deeply displeased and threatening that impeachment proceedings could follow.
Phuyal noted that his suspicions had deepened when Sapkota instructed staff to put a tea bill under someone else's name. Sapkota had later pressed Phuyal to release controversial businessman Deepak Bhatta, again claiming to act on a direct order from the PM.
SECURITY LAPSES AND MILITARY INTERVENTION
Troubled by the interactions, Justice Phuyal visited the IGP Secretariat, showed Sapkota's photo and phone number to an official, and requested background details. Two days later, the secretariat responded: 'This is a high-profile individual with connections at the highest levels. We are keeping our distance; you should exercise caution as well.'
Meanwhile, the PM's Secretariat informally indicated it held no connection to Sapkota.
As scrutiny mounted, Sapkota escalated his rhetoric, warning of widespread civil unrest and an impending 'military coup.' At that juncture, following consultations among six or seven Supreme Court judges, the group approached current and former army leadership with gathered evidence. Sapkota was taken into custody only after the military took the matter seriously and coordinated the operation.
"Not a single Supreme Court judge issued an order or verdict under his influence," Phuyal asserted. "I am not involved in any wrongdoing." Describing himself as a victim of the intermediary's scheme, Phuyal called for a comprehensive, impartial investigation.
MEDIA REPORTS AND OFFICIAL DENIALS
The judicial statements follow investigative reports by Diyo Post and other local outlets. Diyo Post reported locating financial transaction records totalling Rs 174,000 - spanning November, December and January - on Sapkota's mobile phone. The report alleged that entries bore labels such as 'Manoj Kumar Sharma (chief justice),' 'Bishwa Pokharel (Okhaldhunga),' and 'Banshi Dahal.' The headline cited in Chief Justice Sharma's statement read: ''Bribe' in America in the name of Chief Justice Sharma and RSP lawmaker Pokharel: Evidence revealed by fixer Inam's mobile.'
In a formal statement released today, Chief Justice Sharma said he was 'surprised and stunned' by the allegations.
"I have no acquaintance or contact, direct or indirect, with these individuals, nor have I met them anywhere," Sharma stated, noting that he had not yet assumed the office of CJ during the months referenced in the financial entries. Terming the reports 'baseless, false and fabricated with the malicious intention of misleading the public,' he urged citizens not to fall prey to misinformation. His statement did not explicitly name Sapkota or address Justice Phuyal's account.
In a concurrent statement, Justice Paudel addressed a separate Naya Patrika report concerning a September 2 court order. Paudel maintained that the ruling - issued by a bench on which he sat - was determined strictly on the basis of facts, evidence and established law in the case file.
Beyond formal proceedings in the courtroom with litigants and legal counsels, Paudel affirmed that he had no personal meetings, phone calls or private communications before or after the hearing with any parties to the case or individuals named in the media reports. His statement omitted specific mentions of Sapkota or Phuyal.
