Pokhara, 19 March| Nepal’s Supreme Court has been hearing petitions for two consecutive days challenging the decision of Attorney General Sabita Bhandari to revise criminal charges against Rabi Lamichhane, the chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party. The controversy stems from the removal of organized crime and money laundering charges in an ongoing cooperative fraud case, a move that has triggered intense legal scrutiny and political debate.
Lamichhane had been facing multiple cases across five district courts, accused of misusing funds collected from various cooperatives during his tenure as managing director of Gorkha Media Network. Among these, the Kaski District Court is handling a money laundering case, while organized crime charges have been filed in all but the Chitwan District Court. These charges are considered serious under Nepalese law and carry significant legal and political implications, including potential disqualification from public office.
Attorney General Bhandari approved the revision of the charge sheet on Magh 2, 2082, citing four primary grounds. The first and most emphasized reason was the need to prioritize the return of funds to cooperative depositors. According to her reasoning, maintaining charges such as organized crime and money laundering would complicate or delay the recovery process, thereby affecting victims seeking restitution. The second argument highlighted that while some individuals had taken fraudulent loans or invested funds elsewhere, their assets could still be recovered to compensate depositors if legal barriers were minimized.
The third basis referred to the findings of a parliamentary special investigation committee, which had also prioritized the return of depositors’ funds over prolonged criminal proceedings. Finally, Bhandari invoked Section 36 of the National Criminal Procedure Code Act, 2017, which allows for amendments to charge sheets under certain conditions. Based on these provisions, she concluded that only the cooperative fraud charge should remain, while the other serious allegations be withdrawn.
However, the decision has been strongly contested. Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi and other petitioners have filed writ petitions arguing that the Attorney General’s move is legally flawed and undermines due process. They claim that selectively removing charges could weaken the rule of law and set a concerning precedent for politically sensitive cases.
A joint bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel is currently reviewing the case. A verdict is expected within days, and its implications could be far-reaching. If the Supreme Court upholds the Attorney General’s decision, Lamichhane will no longer face organized crime and money laundering charges, significantly easing his legal burden and allowing him to retain his parliamentary status without suspension.
On the other hand, if the court overturns the decision, all original charges will remain intact, potentially complicating Lamichhane’s political future and legal standing. The case has become a focal point for discussions on judicial independence, prosecutorial discretion, and the intersection of law and politics in Nepal.
As the hearing continues, the nation awaits a decisive ruling that could redefine both the legal trajectory of the case and the broader standards of accountability in high-profile investigations.
