Onlinekhabar caught up with Tikaram Bhattarai, vice-president of the Nepal Bar Association, on the eve of Bar elections, which are taking place at a time when reappointment of Judicial Council members and Supreme Court justices are generating heated debates. Excerpts from the interview:
How are the elections of NBA, the umbrella organisation of lawyers, taking place?
On Chaitra 20 (April 2), polls for the new NBA leadership are taking place. Legal professionals from across the country are eagerly awaiting the race. Though different panels fight for NBA leadership positions, they move ahead in a unified manner after election results. On the eve of the elections for the Bar’s working committee, I appeal legal professionals to vote against malpractices and anomalies, against corruption and in favour of constitutionalism. I ask all concerned to vote against forces that are conspiring to turn the Supreme Court into an institution without justices.
Lawyers from RPP-Nepal are working in close coordination with the progressive camp during this NBA race. Is RPP-Nepal also a progressive force?
Ours is not only a progressive group, it is a progressive-nationalistic camp. At Nepal Bar polls, democratic forces represent one force, whereas non-Congress forces come together as the other force. From the non-Congress camp, Bijaya Kanta Mainali is contesting the race for NBA presidency.
Certain sections allege that the incumbent NBA working committee is not doing great, unlike earlier committees. What’s your take?
This charge is false. After getting elected, we firmly stood against the appointment of the Chief Justice as the chief of the executive. We shaped public opinion against this shameful practice. We asked then CJ Khil Raj Regmi not to accept the executive chief’s post, but he paid no heed. This is a shameful event in the constitutional history of the world. This incident worsened the relations between the Bar and the Bench.
And there were conspiracies to literally shut the judiciary’s doors on Prakash Basti and Bharat Raj Upreti. We stood against this and angered the leadership. The Bar disagreed with appointments at the Supreme Court. This caused conflict between the judiciary and the Hari Krishna Kari-headed Bar. In issues like these, SC judges known for their honesty supported the Bar’s position. Because of this, we are feeling proud. We had conflict with the judiciary because we stood in favour of constitutionalism. We feel proud about that.
But Bar seemed to have lost that fight….
Technically, we appear to have lost that fight. But we won politically. The force that recommended making (CJ) Khil Raj Regmi the chief of the executive accepted during its meeting that it made a mistake.
Thenafter, outgoing justice, Girish Chandra Lal, issued an interim order directing all concerned not to identify Regmi as Chief Justice. Technically, though, we could not stop Regmi (from becoming the executive chief). But constitutional experts from across the world accepted our stance.
But Bar President Hari Krishna Karki chose to become attorney-general, leaving NBA leadership midstream. The NBA’s progressive camp has drawn flak for this.
A group contesting the NBA race has made this its major agenda. This is wrong. First, Karki did not choose the AG’s post while retaining the position of NBA president. He resigned the NBA chief’s position and the Bar’s central working committee approved his move unanimously. The committee also had people representing Sher Bahadur KC’s group. This is not like Khil Raj Regmi choosing to become the chair of the Council of Ministers.
But months after becoming AG, Karki was recommended for the post of SC justice. What’s your take on this?
Bharat Bahadur Karki and Pavan Ojha, then AGs, were also recommended for justices’ positions, so this is a non-issue. And this is not some immoral act, it is not something illegal.
What do you say about effort to make Sapana Pradhan Malla, a former lawmaker from the CPN-UML, Supreme Court justice?
Malla was never a member of any political party. A party supported her for the position of Constituent Assembly member as part of a bid to make the CA inclusive. Before joining the CA, Malla was never a member of any political party, nor did she join any party after her term as lawmaker ended. This charge is coming from people, who do not understand facts. Technically, she is not a UML activist. She made it to the UML’s list of CA members under the proportional representation system. She is an expert on her field. So, we should be proud of the bid to appoint her as justice.
What will happen if the practice of appointing lawmakers as justices continues? Will other lawmakers also not seek to become justices?
It’s not that party functionaries should not become justices. The persons concerned should not issue verdicts in ways that reflect political bias. If constitution allows such appointments and the persons have required qualifications, no one should object to such appointments.
You want one of the camps to win a clear majority in NBA polls?
In the capacity of NBA’s Vice-president, I cannot seek votes for one group or the other. But I ask voters to identify the force that barred the appointment of SC justices from 2067 to 2071 BS. Voters should also identify the force that made the judiciary the weakest. Who took part in the anti-corruption campaign and who did not? The voters should also take these questions into consideration. There were people, who were advocating in favour of making a certain individual the chief of the executive and the judiciary. Which camp were they representing at that time? The voters should judge before voting. And who is standing for constitutionalism, the rule of law, protection of human rights and a corruption-free judiciary? Whether to rid the judiciary of anomalies and malpractices or promote corruption in the judiciary? The voters should judge themselves.
But who recommended those individuals, who entered the CPN-UML office right after getting appointed as judges?
That was a wrong practice and we cannot support such an act. The Bar has never supported such an act.
