The Supreme Court has done its part by clearing the way for a criminal investigation against CPN (Maoist Centre) Vice-chair Agni Sapkota and the party’s lawmaker Surya Man Dong, putting the onus on the government to take the matter forward, legal experts say.
On June 4, the constitutional bench of the court, through a certiorari order, overturned the government decision to put the murder-after-abduction case against the duo and four others in abeyance. The government, in July 2012, decided that the insurgency-era case of murder-after-abduction of Arjun Lama falls under the transitional justice process.
Challenging the decision, Lama’s wife, Purnimaya, moved the Supreme Court on November 22 that year. After postponing the hearing around 68 times, the Constitutional Bench, led by Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, passed the verdict in the victims’ favour. The written text of the ruling is yet to be released.
“Now the government’s test has started. The administration can even arrest the accused and start an investigation,” said Pushpa Poudel, who advocated the case on Purnimaya’s behalf, at an interaction on Thursday.
Responding to Purnimaya’s petition, a single bench of Justice Baidyanath Upadhyay on November 25, 2012, had issued an interim order against the government’s decision to shelve the investigation, which, Poudel said, means there was never a barrier to the probe. The investigation was not done, citing the case was sub judice in court.
Experts say now that the final verdict is out, there is no excuse for not commencing the probe.
During the hearing, the defendants argued that the cases relating to the insurgency fall under the jurisdiction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Therefore, they cannot be investigated by the police, they said. The plaintiffs responded, saying that the court should not enter into the issue of investigation.
“Lama’s killing is purely a criminal offence. It doesn’t fall under the TRC’s jurisdiction,” said senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi at the interaction. “It is the state’s responsibility to investigate the case under domestic laws and its international obligations.”
Those who have closely followed the issues say there must be clarity that there is a difference between conflict-related cases and those from the conflict period. Lama’s case falls into the second category, hence it is entirely a criminal case, they claim.
“I am delighted that the top court has passed the ruling for justice. I want to see my husband’s killers behind bars,” said Purnimaya during the interaction. “I want the government to act immediately as per the court’s order.”
Lama, 45, was attending a meeting at a local school in Dapcha in Kavrepalanchok district on April 29, 2005, when a group of CPN-Maoist combatants spirited him away, saying they wanted to talk to him about something. The rebels never let him go.
A subsequent probe by the National Human Rights Commission concluded that the Maoists had killed Lama following his abduction. His family members accused Maoist leaders Sapkota and Dong, among others, of abducting and murdering Lama.
Sapkota and Dong, however, reject the accusation. The frequent attempts of Purnimaya, Arjun’s wife, to register a first information report were turned down by the Kavrepalanchok district police, prompting her to knock the Supreme Court’s door on March 3, 2008 for its intervention in the case.
The police registered the case immediately after the top court’s directive. The Kavre police wrote to the Sindhupalchok police to locate and arrest Sapkota. But Sindhupalchok police reported that Sapkota was nowhere to be found.
Sapkota got elected to Parliament from Sindhupalchok three times after the complaint was lodged and went on to become a Cabinet member and then the Speaker.
The July, 2012 Cabinet decision halted the investigation for years.
