Sunday, September 04, 2005

SC Begins Examining RCCC Status



Kathmandu, September 4-The Supreme Court today began hearing on a case challenging the constitutionality of the Royal Commission for Corruption Control (RCCC) which was formed six months ago.
After today’s hearing, a single bench of Justice Min Bahadur Rayamajhi issued a show cause notice to the commission demanding its reply on why the SC should not issue an order disbanding it. The bench ordered the commission to justify its constitutionality, through the Office of the Attorney General, within three days. During today’s hearing, senior advocate Shree Hari Aryal and advocates Shambhu Thapa, Badri Bahadur Karki, Subash Nembang, Agni Kharel and Madhav Basnet sought the court’s order to scrap the commission saying its formation was unconstitutional.
They also claimed that neither anyone has the authority to form such a commission with the power of a court nor has the commission any legal power to decide on corruption cases. The SC order came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Santosh Kumar Mahato challenging the constitutionality of the commission. The bench also said the court would hear the PIL filed by Mahato on Thursday along with the habeas corpus petition filed by Sanjiv Parajuli seeking release of former minister Rajib Parajuli who is in jail after he refused to pay Rs 5.1 million as bail imposed by the commission in a corruption case. Both the petitions challenged the RCCC’s action as well as its formation under Article 115 (7) and its continuance under Article 127 of the Constitution even after the lifting of the State of Emergency. The petitioners have challenged the King’s order on April 29 extending the RCCC’s life after the lapse of the State of Emergency imposed on February 1. The RCCC had recently arrested former minister and member of the CPN-UML, Bhim Rawal, in a corruption case related to leasing an aircraft of the South West China Airlines Corporation six years ago. He was, however, released following a SC stay order.

No comments: