Legal arrangements should ensure justice to the society. But it seems that the government is trying to respect the criminals and not the justice of the society. It is unacceptable to try to change the existing laws and turn the society backwards.
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.
On the other hand, the government has started its homework to maintain its tajbizi on the need to make the legal system that cannot grant amnesty for various 11 types of heinous crimes more concrete and strict. In the Criminal Procedure Code 2074, it is tried to establish the whims of the government by removing the negative list of 11 crimes such as corruption, extortion, murder, etc.
The current effort confirms that the current government is not aware of the public criticism of the many amnesties that have already been granted. Such a trend is essentially arbitrary, a violation of the minimum obligation to be accountable. This will weaken the rule of law within the country, tarnishing the image of the country in the international world. Mainly chaos will increase in the society. It is doubtful that the government would be interested in such a legal arrangement. Because the society will not get positive results from this. Therefore, the government should withdraw from the homework of the controversial amendment while expressing its commitment to the implementation of the current legal provisions.
Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2074 has a provision regarding waiver. According to the court's decision, a person who has been sentenced can apply to the President through the Ministry of Home Affairs to have the sentence pardoned, postponed, changed or reduced. However, it is said that no action can be taken to pardon, postpone, change or reduce the punishment of the offenders of 11 crimes.
It includes corruption, torture, coercion, killing in a cruel and inhumane manner or control, genocide, explosives, kidnapping, body hostage or missing person, human trafficking and trafficking, money laundering and drug trafficking or dealing which is punishable by imprisonment for more than three years. By removing these 11 lists, the government is doing homework on the bill so that it can pardon anyone in any situation if it wants.
Even when the negative list remained intact, the arbitrariness of the government and the party was high. For example, when Yograj Dhakal, also known as Regal, a Congress activist, was serving a life sentence for murdering Chetan Manandhar in broad daylight in Nepalganj, President Ramchandra Paudel granted amnesty by waiving the rest of his imprisonment. Later, the Supreme Court overturned President Paudel's amnesty decision and sentenced Regal to prison.
Suzan Koirala of Butwal, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of murdering his brother, was released after getting the remainder of his imprisonment from the President. Within four years of Minaha's imprisonment, he killed his ex-wife and two girls again on June 14. In every amnesty, many names are disputed and criticized. Because, amnesty has been granted even to criminals who are prohibited by law. If a law with loose provisions is made, the government and the government-affiliated parties can easily pardon anyone they want, regardless of how serious a crime they are involved in.
It is natural to have criminal incidents in society. Even in economically and materially developed societies there are people with criminal attitudes. Due to his actions, criminal activities continue to happen in the society. Therefore, it is a practice all over the world to punish the criminals according to the law and give justice to the victims. Punishment given to criminals sends a message to criminals there and elsewhere that they will be punished if they commit crimes. It is also the fundamental character of the rule of law. However, the provision of amnesty and not having to serve the punishment when they are close to the government or the party that runs the government increases the morale of the criminals and puts the victims and their families in more fear. Trust in the law in the society is weakening.
In such a situation, no society and country can walk in a judicial rhythm. International commitments made in favor of the rule of law will also be violated. The international community may put us on a negative list. Let's look at an example, the list of things that the President cannot grant amnesty includes the issue of money laundering. Meanwhile, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international organization that monitors money laundering and terrorist activities, has placed Nepal on the "grey-list". If the law is made according to the homework of the government, will Nepal come back from the "grey-list"? Or lobbying to come back based on what logic? Therefore, it can be assessed that homework is being done on the bill without considering the impact on the society and the image lost in the international world.
The government must have a sufficiently convincing reason for creating a new law or amending a special provision in an existing law. Its public justification must be established. But at the moment, there is no justification for the homework to remove the negative list of amnesty mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code 2074. Secondly, a certain government or party cannot deviate from the basic tenets of the rule of law and international commitments, whether they want to or not, based on weak interests. But the current homework is oriented towards that. There is sure to be a public backlash.
Third, the legal system should be able to give the society the confidence of justice. But it seems that the government is trying to respect the criminals and not the justice of the society. It is unacceptable to try to change the existing laws and turn the society backwards. Fourth, the homework being done on the bill is unnatural even according to the government's priorities and commitments. There are many agendas and laws that the government should prioritize.
On the other hand, the seven-point agreement reached between the Congress and the UML before the formation of the current government is to control corruption and maintain good governance in the country. The government must be committed to this. But will corruption control and good governance be maintained by ensuring the legal provision to grant amnesty to those who commit corruption at any time? This question should be answered by the government and the ruling party.
