On bureaucracy and constitutional bodies, GPK’s record, however, is paradoxical specially in terms of respecting constitutional bodies like the Supreme Court (SC), the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA. Though his acts were politically correct, his commitment to respecting the norms of constitutional bodies remained controversial.
After then king Gyanendra ousted the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government on October 4, 2002, the CIAA started taking actions against some senior political leaders on charge of corruption. Some interpreted CIAA’s move as a political move. They say that the CIAA was somehow influenced by the monarchy.
In the meantime, the CIAA sent letters to some 50 political leaders including former prime ministers and ministers. Girija Prasad Koirala was one among them. CIAA issued the letters to the top political figures asking them to furnish the sources of income of their properties.
That became a big news not only in Nepali media but also in international media. Every quarter including international community was curious whether GPK would go to CIAA and furnish clarifications on his sources of income.
To a great surprise of all, GPK announced that he would never go to the CIAA to furnish clarifications. Analysts say Koirala committed a wrong by ignoring the constitutional body. In their opinion, he should have gone to the CIAA. GPK could have established a good precedent had he gone to the CIAA and cleared all allegations against him. Did GPK violate legal norms by defying the CIAA? Was his stance right or wrong?
GPK failed to make use of the opportunity when the CIAA summoned him. He should have been present before the CIAA in person and explain the realities. It was a very good opportunity to establish himself as a non-corrupt politician and a person abiding by the democratic practice, constitutional values and norms. Had he been able to do it, his democratic image wouldn’t have been tarnished.
There were many debates and disputes over whether GPK did right or wrong. In the meantime, some lawyers filed a writ petition against GPK at the Supreme Court. They argued that GPK violated laws for not respectin the CIAA.
The SC came up with a bold verdict and said that GPK must present himself before the CIAA and furnish clarifications. Some applauded the SC for its bold verdict while leaders and cadres close to the NC objected the SC’s verdict and called its politically motivated.
Immediately after the SC’s decision, GPK spoke to the media and said the SC was influenced by monarchy. “I think the SC should be shifted to the Royal Palace because it failed to come up with an impartial verdict. I have no more faith in the SC after this verdict. I will never go to the CIAA.”
GPK’s statement to shift the SC to the royal palace was widely criticized by legal and constitutional experts. Immediately after his remarks, some lawyers filed a contempt of court case in the SC against him. They argued in their case that GPK committed contempt of court by questioning the credibility of the SC. In their opinion, his remarks to shift the SC to the royal palace were like a political slogan.
In response, the SC came up with bold decision once again. “Why he delivered such speech against the SC? He should present himself before the court in person with written clarification on why he spoke against the impartiality of court,” an SC decision said.
Again, speculations were made whether GPK would go to the SC in person to furnish written clarification. Finally, he decided to go to the SC. Thousands of NC leaders, cadres, his well wishers and commoners were gathered on the premises of SC and the surrounding areas from Ramshahpath to Thapathali. Many people entered into the court room; they broke a few chairs. Dozens of national and international journalists had already reached there. Journalists asked GPK why he spoke against the SC and whether it was true that he had no more faith in the judiciary.
What GPK replied then was important. “I know the king (Ex-King Gyanendra) is trying to bow me down to his unconstitutional move. But I will never bow down to his moves. I will keep on fighting against his unconstitutional move. This is not only the conspiracy against me but also the democracy. I am here because I respect the judiciary. But I want to give a message that the courts and constitutional bodies should initiate any action on their own but not guided from outside. They shouldn’t be influenced.”
His remarks were somehow bold and politically correct. Some people praised him for what he said inside the court while others criticized him.
Besides CIAA and the SC, GPK remained controversial in the bureaucracy as well. Some of his decisions regarding the civil service remained highly controversial. Amendment of Civil Service Act was a bold move he took immediately after he became prime minister for the first time in 1991.
The amendment reduced the retirement age of civil servants from 60 to 58. Following that amendment, hundreds of government employees got retired. Those who were compelled to retire had fiercely criticized GPK for amending the Act. They also said that GPK did them injustice.
Another provision of the amended Act was more controversial. The Act had a provision to give compulsory retirement through a letter to anybody who didn’t cooperate with the government. In fact, the provision was targeted to those who served royal family during the time of people’s movement in 1990.
Invoking that controversial provision, the GPK-led government gave compulsory retirement to scores of senior government employees. Nearly one hundred government employees got retired under that provision. Challenging the government’s decision, they filed a case in the Supreme Court. Later, the SC reinstated them. Chakra Bandhu Aryal, Shreeman Shrestha, Indra Kumar Shrestha and Rewati Raman Pokhrel were a few names sacked by the GPK-led government and reinstated by the SC. They later became secretaries in different ministries.
GPK’s move to sack the government employees was criticized from within his own party. Some of NC leaders said that GPK’s intention was not bad but the procedure he adopted was wrong.
No doubt, GPK and his party Nepali Congress played important role to amend the Anti-corruption Act and strengthen the CIAA with more power. But later, the GPK didn’t accept CIAA’s order, accusing it of being politically motivated and influenced by then king. To some extent his stance was correct, but he did wrong by entirely ignoring the statutory body’s decision. On an all, GPK’s moves on bureaucracy and the constitutional bodies were controversial and they will remain controversial.
Related story
Cuba's Fidel Castro, who defied US for 50 years, dies at 90
