Kathmandu. High-ranking officials in the country's security agencies and judiciary have been compelled to issue clarifications one after another after their names were linked to a controversial individual. The name of Nepal Police Chief (IGP) Dan Bahadur Karki, as well as the Chief Justice and justices, have been implicated in connection with Inam Sapkota, who is described as a notorious middleman. This has led to a series of statements and denials. However, the question of what the truth is between the public claims and their denials remains unanswered. For some days now, news has been circulating linking IGP Karki's name with Sapkota. News emerged claiming that the government had sought Karki's resignation based on the fact that he had contact with Sapkota via WhatsApp. It was also claimed that Prime Minister Balen Shah's secretariat was preparing to dismiss him if he did not resign. Sapkota was taken into custody by the police at Tribhuvan International Airport on October 14. Sapkota, who was arrested after his connections with former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and businessman Deepak Bhatta, currently in jail, were revealed, is under investigation. As the investigation progresses, new details connected to him are being revealed. In this context, details of contact with IGP Karki were made public; on Thursday, another sensational claim emerged. Some media outlets revealed details of Sapkota's contact with Supreme Court justices as well. The public details claim that money was deposited in the name of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma and that there was a chat with Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal regarding a case pending in the Supreme Court. Following the public release of these details, clarifications and denials have started coming from the individuals concerned. In this situation, the question of whose statement to believe and what the reality is has become more complex. So far, Nepal Police, Nepal Bar, the Chief Justice, two justices, and Member of Parliament Bishwaraj Pokharel, among others, have issued statements attempting to clear their names. Unease in the Police Nepal Police has claimed that attempts are being made to spread fabricated information with the intention of creating confusion about the organization's prestige, professionalism, and performance. Furthermore, the police issued a statement on Thursday warning that they would proceed with investigation and legal action according to existing laws against those spreading misinformation. The press release issued by the Police Headquarters, Office of the Inspector General of Police, on Thursday stated that they are aware of the machinations of a few individuals who aim to play against the government by dragging the security organization into controversy. The statement claimed that there was no truth to the news and commentary circulating in some media and social media in recent times stating that 'pressure has increased on IGP Dan Bahadur Karki to resign.' Incidentally, Karki had also called an emergency Policy Coordination Committee (PCC) meeting on Thursday. A four-hour discussion was held in the meeting. According to a senior police official present at the meeting, the PCC primarily discussed two topics: the leakage of information regarding the investigation into Inam Sapkota and the propaganda against the IGP. The official told RatoPati that the meeting also decided to collectively counter the 'baseless propaganda' against the organization's chief. The police stated that presenting unconfirmed matters as news and commentary based on assumptions can create confusion among the public, pose security risks, and affect the organization's trust, image, and integrity. MP Pokharel's Own Claim Similarly, House of Representatives member Bishwaraj Pokharel has claimed that he has no acquaintance, phone contact, or relationship with Inam Sapkota. Stating that allegations of his connection with a middleman and financial transactions have been made by linking his name, he said in a statement on Thursday that these allegations are baseless, misleading, and fabricated. Pokharel mentioned that he has no acquaintance, contact, or involvement with any broker or middleman, and stated that the claims related to financial transactions presented by linking them to him are completely misleading and regrettable. He stated that publicizing his name with objectionable allegations without proven facts and official basis is an attack on personal reputation, social image, and public life. He also stated that if false and baseless materials are disseminated with the intention of damaging his reputation, he reserves the right to seek legal remedies according to the prevailing laws. Claims have emerged that a bribe was deposited in US and Nepali bank accounts through Inam's channel in the name of Chief Justice Sharma and Rastriya Swatantra Party MP and former Nepal Police AIG Bishwaraj Pokharel. Chief Justice Sharma has also denied the news linking his name. In a statement issued on Thursday, Sharma stated that he has no involvement with the individuals and context mentioned in the news. He stated that he has no direct or indirect acquaintance or contact with these individuals and has never met them. The statement mentions that on the dates November, December, and January mentioned in the news, he had not even become the Chief Justice. Justice Paudel Also Among Those Issuing Clarifications Supreme Court Justice Shree Kant Paudel has issued a statement drawing attention to the news. In a statement issued on Thursday, he stated that based on the facts, evidence, and law attached to the case file on August 17, 2083 (Bikram Sambat), an order was issued by the bench he was part of. He asserted that apart from discussing the subject matter with the parties present in the court and the legal practitioners during the hearing of the case, he had no personal meetings or communication through any means, including phone calls, with the parties to the case, the individuals mentioned in the news, or anyone else before or after the order. Paudel stated in his statement that he is faithfully committed to the administration of justice. New Magazine Daily published details of a conversation between Inam and Phuyal on Thursday. According to the WhatsApp message details between Phuyal and Sapkota, Sapkota initially sent a screenshot of Rohit Agarwal's habeas corpus petition. He then messaged, 'Good morning, please stop this, the Prime Minister is also interested in this, please reject it.' He then called on WhatsApp. After the call was not answered, Phuyal wrote a reply message. Responding to Sapkota's missed call, Justice Phuyal wrote, 'I saw this late. There was a basis for releasing him (Rohit Gupta). We have asked for a bail of two crore rupees. Golchha (Shekhar Golchha) was asked for one crore.' He also messaged Sapkota a link to the Supreme Court's website showing the order to release Gupta on bail. Phuyal then proposed meeting at the Himalayan Hotel the next day. In response, Sapkota agreed with 'Okay,' as seen in the screenshot. What Phuyal Says About This Justice Hari Phuyal of the Supreme Court, who is involved in this case, has claimed that Inam Sapkota tried to pressure judges by showing interest in various cases. Phuyal claims that he filed a complaint against him after realizing this. According to Phuyal, Sapkota claimed to have access to high-ranking officials including the Prime Minister, Chief of Army Staff, and Inspector General of Police, and tried to influence judges. He said that Sapkota used to threaten them with impeachment and send messages about various cases. He clarified that he has not deviated financially, morally, or ethically and has not made any settlement with Sapkota. Expressing his desire that the investigation into judicial corruption should not be affected, he said that a thorough investigation should be conducted into how Sapkota tried to influence various bodies. The District Police Range, Kathmandu, has also expressed serious concern, stating that information related to the investigation has been made public by making investigation officers the source of news and materials related to the middleman Inam Sapkota. In a statement issued on Thursday, the Range clarified that investigation matters must be kept confidential and that sensitive details, evidence, and information have not been provided to any individual or party. The police stated that they are committed to maintaining the impartiality, professionalism, and confidentiality of the investigation and argued that disseminating or publishing information and materials related to the investigation in violation of existing laws can create confusion among the public. Bar in Favor of Impartial Investigation The Nepal Bar Association has expressed concern over the alleged conversations and meetings between Supreme Court justices and individuals related to controversial cases, demanding an impartial, independent, and timely investigation into the public details. In a press release issued on Thursday, the Bar stated that when serious questions are publicly raised regarding the conduct of the high leadership and justices of the judiciary, they should not be limited to news reports in the media. The Bar stated that with the Chief Justice also being involved in the controversy, it has generated serious public interest. The Bar clarified that the allegations mentioned in the public news cannot be taken as the final truth or as proof of guilt for any individual. The Bar's position is that every individual should be guaranteed a fair investigation, an opportunity to present their views, and the judicial process according to the prevailing laws. The Bar stated that the independence, impartiality, fearlessness, and institutional credibility of the judiciary are the pillars of a democratic system of governance, and maintaining public trust in the judiciary is a shared responsibility of the judicial leadership, justices, legal practitioners, and the entire state apparatus. The Bar has urged the relevant competent bodies to conduct an impartial, independent, credible, and timely investigation into the public matters and make the facts public. The Bar has also demanded that if any act contrary to the law is proven, action should be taken according to the law, regardless of position or status.
Read full story at source ( english.ratopati.com )
