• FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION
KATHMANDU, APRIL 29
Voices against the five year-statute of limitation proposed in the two anti-corruption bills passed by the National Assembly recently has been growing, with Nepali Congress General Secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma joining the opponents of the bill's provision.
The Upper House of the Parliament recently passed the two bills - the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Bill and Prevention of Corruption Bill okaying the five-year statute of limitation provision in corruption cases.
Addressing a programme in Lalitpur today, Sharma said if the five-year statute of limitation was introduced, corrupt people would enjoy impunity.
According to the bills' provision, a corruption case should be filed within five years after it is known that somebody has been involved in corruption.
The anti-corruption laws do not have the statute of limitations, allowing the anti-corruption body to probe and file corruption cases any time.
Earlier, NC leader Arjun Narsingh KC had also opposed the five-year statute of limitation saying the provision would save corrupt people from prosecution. CPN-UML's Chief Whip Padam Giri had also told the House of Representatives that the five year-statute of limitation would protect corrupt people.
Advocate Raju Chapagai said the five-year statute was not compatible with Nepal's commitment to the UN Convention against Corruption, which Nepal ratified in 2011.
The UN Convention Against Corruption provisions a longer statute of limitation.
Article 29 of the UN Convention against Corruption stipulates: Each State Party shall, where appropriate, establish under its domestic law a long statute of limitations period in which to commence proceedings for any offence established in accordance with this Convention and establish a longer statute of limitations period or provide for suspension of the statute of limitations where the alleged offender has evaded the administration of justice. He said if the government supported the five-year statute of limitations, the government and the ruling parties would shield their favourites for five years and allow the statute of limitation to lapse.
Former NA member Radhe Shyam Adhikari, also a senior advocate, told THT that the two bills okayed by the NA had provisioned for no statute of limitation in corruption cases involving government money, but in other cases, it proposed the five-year statute of limitation, which could be extended to seven or 10 years but it would be inappropriate to remove the statute of limitation.
"It won't be right if a disproportionate asset case is filed against a retired public officer 25 years after he retires from the job," he added.
Former NA member and senior advocate Ram Narayan Bidari said there was no reason to oppose the five-year statute of limitation.
"If a government does not do anything against a corrupt person for five years, then it loses the case of seeking more time to probe and file cases against corrupt people," Bidari said. He said unlimited statute of limitation was like a Damocles sword, which ruling parties could use against opponents to scare them or exact political revenge on them. He said that before the Prevention of Corruption Act, there was one year statute of limitation in corruption cases.
The two bills can become laws once the House of Representatives endorses them. The Lower House of the Parliament can endorse them with or without changes.
Private business houses have also opposed the two bills as the NA passed the bills proposing to bring private institutions, particularly banks and financial institutions under the scope of the anti-corruption body which are at present not under its ambit.
A version of this article appears in the print on April 30, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.
