Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The government’s move to withdraw money laundering and organized crime cases against Rabi Lamichhane has left Nepal’s justice system in an awkward spot. At first, it looked like a decision tied to one political leader. Very quickly, it became clear that the effects would spread far beyond a single name. Courts, prosecutors, victims, and accused persons in similar cases are all watching closely.

Once the Attorney General’s Office approved changes to the charge sheets and signaled its intent to pull back serious charges, writ petitions reached the Supreme Court. Hearings began on Tuesday. The speed of this response shows how uneasy many feel about the decision. It also shows that the issue is not only legal but deeply political.

The core issue is simple. Criminal law deals with acts, not personalities. In this case, that line looks blurred. Legal practitioners say the withdrawal process focuses on who the accused is, not on what the alleged crimes involve. If courts accept this logic, it will not stop with Lamichhane. Every pending money laundering and organised crime case could feel the ripple effect.

The Attorney General’s Office has leaned on Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code to defend the amendment of charges. That section allows changes when new evidence appears or when errors need correction. It was never meant to remove major charges midway through a trial. On the other hand, Section 116 clearly lists money laundering among cases that should not be withdrawn. This clash between two legal provisions now sits at the center of the dispute.

The consequences could be serious. Prosecutors across the country handle many financial crime cases that already face pressure from influence and delay. If one high profile accused receives relief through executive action, others will demand the same. Government attorneys will struggle to convince courts and the public that law treats everyone equally. Judges may find themselves pushed to approve withdrawals instead of deciding cases based on evidence.

Meanwhile, The Supreme Court has been compelled to address key legal questions linked to Lamichhane’s case following a writ filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law student Ayush Badal, and Yubaraj Poudel Safal.

The court will decide if a case already under judicial consideration can be withdrawn through a decision of the Attorney General, and if charges can be selectively withdrawn against one individual in cases involving multiple defendants. The petition argues that such selectivity, especially if driven by political influence, violates the principle of equality before the law and the rule of law.

The court will interpret Clause 36(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows amendment of charge sheets only when new evidence emerges and with court approval. It will also examine Section 116 of the Criminal Code, which bars withdrawal of cases involving serious offences, including money laundering and organized crime. The Supreme Court will assess if the attorney general’s recommendation to withdraw such charges runs contrary to these legal provisions.

In Lamichhane’s cases, cooperative depositors say their savings were misused. In Rupandehi alone, the charge sheet mentions more than Rs 861 million involving over 1,800 people. Dropping money laundering and organised crime charges shrinks the scope of responsibility and limits legal options for recovery. The law itself says that if withdrawal affects property rights, the affected party’s consent matters. Victims objected, yet their voices did not change the course taken.

There is also an external dimension. Nepal remains under close watch for its handling of financial crimes. Diluting prosecutions at home sends a poor signal outside the country. Selective enforcement raises doubts about intent and capacity. That risk is not abstract. It carries possible consequences for Nepal’s standing in global financial systems.

A political question also hangs over the case. Who urged the government or the Attorney General to pull back? The official note order refers to Lamichhane’s claim of political bias. That claim has not been examined by any court. Letting such claims guide prosecution creates a dangerous path. Any accused person can allege bias. Courts exist to test those claims. Skipping that step weakens trust.

Should these cases be withdrawn? Based on law and common practice, the answer leans no. Courts should hear the evidence and deliver judgments. If proof is weak, acquittal will follow. If crimes are established, punishment will follow. That process protects both the accused and the victims.

By intervening midway, the state weakens its own cases and suggests that influence can change outcomes. The petitions now before the court offer a chance to correct course. What the judiciary decides will shape not only Lamichhane’s future, but also how Nepal handles money laundering and organized crime cases in the years ahead.