Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and ICJ have stated that they have received credible reports that judges Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Phuyal were threatened with impeachment if they refused to resign.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Three international organizations have issued a statement alleging interference with the judiciary after a government was formed under the leadership of senior Rastriya Swatantra Party leader Balendra Shah. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ICJ jointly issued a statement on Friday stating that the government had pressured three Supreme Court justices to resign. The government, however, has challenged anyone to prove that such pressure was exerted.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) issued a joint statement alleging that political pressure was exerted on Supreme Court justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, and Hari Phuyal to resign. They accused the government of taking steps that threaten the independence of the judiciary.
Issuing a joint statement from Geneva, all three organizations said they had received reports that political pressure was being used to force sitting justices to resign or to impeach them in order to change the structure of the Supreme Court.
“There are credible reports that the three Supreme Court justices—Pradhan, Regmi, and Phuyal—were threatened with impeachment if they refused to resign,” the statement said.
The organizations also stated in their release that they were not aware of any publicly stated allegations that would fulfill the constitutional grounds for impeachment under Nepal’s Constitution. While acknowledging that judicial reform may be necessary, they expressed concern that the government’s reform process could undermine judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.
Minister for Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs, Sobhita Gautam, said that, contrary to the claims of the three international organizations, there had been no interference with the judiciary from the government’s side. She said the government understands the sensitivity of the judiciary. “The government cannot say such things. As a student of law, I am very clear about the limits of the government and how sensitively it must act toward the judiciary. I want to assure you with full confidence that no member of the government, no member of the Council of Ministers, has said such a thing,” said Minister Gautam, who is also the vice president of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party.
Law Minister Gautam also said that the government had not considered impeaching or taking any other action against the justices. Addressing the organizations that issued statements regarding Nepal’s judiciary, Minister Gautam said, “Those who issued the statement must also provide proof; mere allegations are not enough.”
The organizations also expressed concern over the amendment of legal provisions regarding the quorum and voting procedures of the Constitutional Council, the body responsible for recommending appointments to key constitutional positions including the Chief Justice. “Since the Constitutional Council has always had a majority of political officeholders, the amendment increases the risk of undue political influence in judicial appointments and undermines international standards regarding judicial independence and the rule of law,” the statement said.
The organizations referred to the government’s amendment of the Constitutional Council Act through an ordinance. Immediately after the amendment, the Council recommended Manoj Sharma as Chief Justice. Contrary to the tradition of recommending the most senior justice as Chief Justice, Sharma, who was fourth in seniority, was recommended, bypassing then-acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and three other more senior justices.
Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who chaired the Council meeting, proposed Sharma’s name for Chief Justice. The proposal was passed by majority vote. Along with Prime Minister and Council Chair Shah, Speaker DP Aryal, Law Minister Gautam, and Deputy Speaker Rubi Kumari Thakur supported the proposal. National Assembly Chair Narayan Prasad Dahal and main opposition Congress leader Bhishmaraj Angdembe submitted written dissent against the proposal to appoint Sharma as Chief Justice.
The joint statement from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ICJ also noted that Sharma’s appointment as Chief Justice had heightened concerns. “Appointing him while three senior justices were still in office marks a departure from Nepal’s long-standing practice of appointing the most senior Supreme Court justice as Chief Justice,” the statement said. “Although there were complaints regarding the nomination, the Parliamentary Hearing Committee approved his recommendation without any meaningful public scrutiny of those complaints.”
ICJ’s Senior Legal and Policy Director Ian Seiderman said, “The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of the rule of law and an essential safeguard for the protection of human rights. Any reform of Nepal’s judicial system must strengthen, not weaken, the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the courts.”
The statement also said that efforts to remove three senior justices while the Supreme Court is considering extremely important and far-reaching constitutional cases would have a significant impact on the functioning of the judiciary. “Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on the competence and integrity of judges but also on the transparency, impartiality, and independence of judicial appointments,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Judicial appointments or dismissals that appear politically motivated undermine the confidence in the administration of justice and weaken the rule of law.”
Bipin Kumar Acharya, General Secretary of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party, said there had been no discussion in the government or the party about pressuring Supreme Court justices to resign. Responding to Kantipur’s inquiry about the statement issued from Geneva by the three international organizations regarding Nepal’s judiciary, he said, “This is not even a subject for party discussion. Rastriya Swatantra Party is clear and committed to the constitutional autonomy and independence of the judiciary. We are a party that abides by the Constitution; we cannot even imagine activities outside the Constitution.”
