Upholding the judiciary’s image and independence is in the best interest of the nation

The recent comments of Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Sher Bahadur Tamang have received flak from the legal fraternity and constitutional experts. Minister Tamang has said that the “interim orders passed by the Supreme Court (SC) will be scrutinised by the government”. General Secretary of Nepal Bar Association Khamma Bahadur Khati said the minister’s comments “were against the independence of judiciary”. Minister Tamang had also said he would table a proposal in the Council of Ministers to discuss this issue. But the Cabinet did not discuss it at the last moment considering the sensitivities of the issue. Tamang has also stressed that all justices of the SC should make public their property details, a call fiercely opposed by the judges. It may be noted that SC has issued interims orders allowing repatriation of the profit made form Ncell and the release of over Rs two billion from bank of a firm which has not revealed the legitimate source of bringing in the money from tax haven countries. Acting upon the Large Taxpayers Office (LTO)’s request, the Nepal Rastra Bank on July 10 last year had issued directives to banks and financial institutions not to provide foreign exchange facilities to the companies associated with Ncell-Axiata unless its former shareholder paid capital gain tax to the State.

The government does not have any constitutional and legal authority to launch an investigation regarding a sub-judice case or any other verdicts made by the court of law. The constitution has clearly stated that the judiciary shall function independently, free from intervention of the executive. It is the Judicial Council (JC) which has power to launch an investigation if a judge violates professional norms and ethics. The way Minister Tamang issued a public statement on Tuesday regarding the interim orders undermines the constitutional provisions. The minister’s take that all judges should make public their property details and that the judges will not be allowed to visit foreign countries without the government consent is also against the letter and spirit of independence of the judiciary. Any move to control judiciary is unacceptable. If the government wants to make it mandatory that judges should also make public their property details, federal Parliament must enact law to this effect.

There is no doubt that judiciary has recently landed in controversy due to some controversial decisions of the Supreme Court and “professional non-integrity” of some justices. But it does not mean that they can be scrutinised by the executive. In order to make the judiciary independent and competent enough, the appointment process of judges must also be kept free from all political influences. It is imperative that the judges are appointed on the basis of their merit and proven professional integrity. The Parliamentary Hearing Committee, which conducts hearing of judges of the apex court, should be competent enough while endorsing nominees from the executive, which always wants to appoint the persons of its choice in the judiciary, and the Judicial Council. This committee should not conduct its business just as a ritual as has been happening till date since 2007. Upholding the judiciary’s image and independence is in the best interest of the nation.

Equip DoA

The return of two centuries-old idols from a US museum to Nepal on Wednesday indeed is an achievement of historic proportion. The idols of Uma Maheshwor and Lord Buddha had gone missing in the 1980s and had turned up in the collection of Metropolitan Museum of Art Work in New York. The idol of Uma Maheshwor dates back to 12th or 13th century. Similarly, the idol of Lord Buddha dates back to 11th or 12th century.

Around 40 idols and artefacts have been returned to the Department of Archaeology (DoA), the apex body for archaeological research and protection of cultural heritage, from various countries so far. Thousands of centuries-old idols, according to officials, were smuggled from Nepal in the 1960s and 1980s. The DoA says it has received 300-400 complaints about stolen idols since 1995. The department, however, has no record of ancient idols and artefacts stolen so far. There is a need to equip the DoA to help it maintain and update its inventory of idols and artefacts. Old idols and artefacts are the heritage of the country. The state should step up efforts to find stolen artefacts and make efforts to bring them back wherever they are found.