Whatever the truth, the present drama has further tarnished the image of the parliamentary committee. The partisan behaviour of the committee members has resulted in this undesirable state of affairs. The minister may have got a respite, but it has certainly brought stigma to the parliamentary democracy in Nepal
Janardan Sharma, the immediate past finance minister, has received a new lease of life after he was found innocent by an investigation committee. It was set up to look into the allegation of the entry of an outsider during the last phase of the preparation of this year's budget. A 10-personcommittee was formed after the opposition, the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML), threatened to halt the parliament. It consisted of parliamentarians from different parties, including four from the UML and the rest from the government coalition.
The government could not afford yet another disturbance after the parliament was paralysed for 187 consecutive days by the UML a few months back.
The UML, however, has signed a note of dissent after being dissatisfied with the majority decision of the committee that gave a clean chit to Sharma.
In early times, such investigation committees would not be formed. Instead the accused had to face ordeals of various kinds. Accordingly, Sita had to pass a fire ordeal after being questioned of her chastity when a washerman refused entry to his wife who had been away for a night, saying that he was unlike Rama who accepted Sita despite being kidnapped by Ravana for several days. She was accepted by Rama only after she passed the test fire, remaining unburnt despite being engulfed by the flames. Similarly, the Pandavas had to wander for 12 years in the forests and one year in disguise after losing everything, including their consort Draupadi, in the gamble and failing to pay.
In Nepal, people still swear to prove their innocence.
During the reign of Pratap Malla in the 17th century, people were made to speak the truth in front of the ferocious Kal Bhairavstatue in Kathmandu Durbar Square. It is said that a few adventurous ones exercising falsity invariably breathed their last after vomiting blood.
Quite a few finance ministers in Nepal had to pass this litmus test posed by the parliamentary investigation committee in the past. Bharat Mohan Adhikari staged a comeback after being found innocent of the allegation of having leaked the budget to the press. Similarly, Ram Sharan Mahat also bounced back after being acquitted of illegal foreign currency ownership. Bishnu Paudel, the other finance minister, enjoyed a similar fate. In a similar manner, Sharma also has been cleared of his alleged political misdemeanor.
The allegation about Sharma was that he allowed the unlawful entry of an outsider towards the fag end of the budget preparation. This person is alleged to have made several changes in the taxes in a way benefitting the business tycoons and thereby the parties in power in the wake of the forthcoming elections. The UML had demanded the replay of the closed circuit television (CCTV) installed in the budget preparation room.
There was news of a hurried erasure of the CCTV footage before the legal retention time of three months. During the investigation, only 51 single frames without the continuous footage of the CCTV were made available. Moreover, the call records of the accused on the scanner were not produced before the committee.
The committee ended in a deadlock with the UML and the coalition parties' parliamentarians taking diagonally opposite stands. In a democratic set up, the view of the majority is adopted in the absence of consensus. The committee at the end had to resort to the majority opinion. The UML alleged that a conspiracy was hatched right from the time the committee was formed, with the majority of the parliamentarians coming from the ruling coalition, and ended up writing a note of dissent.
In India, a seven-person committee was formed to look into the alleged offer of money to vote in favour of the government on the confidence motion in the 14th Lok Sabha. This became necessary after two opposition Members of Parliament presented themselves in the well of the House with two bags full of currency notes. The committee held its first meeting on July 30, 2008 and finished writing the report on October 30. Two committee members wrote a note of dissent, and the chairman, V Kishore Chandra S Deo, submitted the report to the Speaker. But this committee had access to both the audio and video, which appeared conspicuous by its absence in our case.
Parliamentary committees have to be formed because the government is responsible to the parliament, and the parliament has to hold the government accountable. These are important for political control in a democratic system. These committees have the power to inspect government files and documents. There is a provision for the formation of such a committee in the present constitution of Nepal in para 97. But the investigation committees have always cleared the accused in Nepal, raising doubt over their efficacy.
The very reason for the installation of the CCTV is to ensure the recording of the activities for observation whenever required. But its unavailability within the stipulated time of three months should hold the ministry responsible and ultimately the minister for damaging the documents and proofs. According to Nepali law, such an authority is suspended and tried.
But in the present case the defendant has been declared blameless, which is astonishing indeed. It is very surprising to see the UML making only a lukewarm protest when it had created a high decibel opposition in the beginning as if it had reached an understanding at the last moment. The consensus reached on the MCC is a pointer to this direction.
Whatever the truth, the present drama has further tarnished the image of the parliamentary committee. The partisan behaviour of the committee members, instead of being guided by the merit or demerit of the case, has resulted in this undesirable state of affairs. The minister may have got a respite, but it has certainly brought stigma to the parliamentary democracy in Nepal.
A version of this article appears in the print on August 2, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
