The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday asked former Prime Minister and Nepali Congress (NC) president, Girija Prasad Koirala, to appear before the court in person within a week in connection with the contempt of court hearings. Perhaps this is the first time in Nepal’s judicial history that a former prime minister has been asked to appear before judiciary on charge of contempt of court. The apex court summoned Koirala after a group of lawyers filed a petition asking the court to hand over maximum punishment to Koirala for making what they said were derogatory remarks against the supreme legal institution in the country.

Reacting to the apex court’s decision in response to his writ petition against the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) last Wednesday, Koirala said, “the Supreme Court has lost its conscience in front of the Royal Palace” and that “it should be shifted inside the Royal Palace.”

The Supreme Court had asked Koirala to appear before the CIAA in connection with the probe the latter had initiated regarding the former premier’s property.

In what seemed as an about-turn, Koirala said — amid a programme organized by NC’s student wing, Nepal Students Union, Sunday- that he did not mean to disregard and defy the apex court when he spoke against the court verdict last week. “All I wanted was to strengthen the court,” he added.

Koirala also made it a point to criticize central members of his own party who were against taking up the issue of SC verdict against him as an agenda of the party in last Friday’s Central Working Committee meeting. Reports said NC central members including Ram Chandra Poudel, Narhari Acharya, Dr Ram Sharan Mahat and others had refused to accept the issue as an agenda of the party saying that it was Koirala’s personal issue. “Democracy and the (anti-regression) movement are connected with the (Supreme Court) verdict. It’s inappropriate on part of my friends in the party to call it a personal issue,” Koirala has been quoted as saying.

Many said Koirala’s remarks against the country’s judiciary were an outburst of anger when he said- “I will rather go to jail but not appear before Akhtiyar (CIAA). But Koirala’s post-1990 political record tells a different story. History attests that Koirala has set a record of not appearing before state authorities formed to probe the allegations leveled against him. Had he appeared before the judicial commissions formed earlier to investigate into a number of scams in Nepali politics, one could perhaps say this latest attempt by the CIAA to summon him for interrogation was “politically motivated”.

But he has always denied interrogations, as if he is beyond question and interrogation. Sometimes he said he was “answerable only to the Parliament” while at other times Koirala said he had “taken the Oath of Office and Secrecy”, to avoid interrogation by state organs investigating huge scams.

Koirala did not give his statement to the commission formed under the chairmanship of SC justice Min Bahadur Rayamajhi in 2052 B. S. to probe into the infamous Dhamija scam saying that he was answerable only to the House of Representatives.

Similarly, another case in point is the one involving the national flag carrier Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation’s jet aircraft lease deal with Austria’s Lauda Air. When the CIAA on May 2, 2001 sent sealed questionnaires to Koirala regarding the Lauda Jet Aircraft Deal, he questioned the constitutional anti-graft body’s jurisdiction and wrote back (on May 4, 2001) saying that the prime minister was beyond CIAA’s jurisdiction. The CIAA did not have authority then that it enjoys now.

The CIAA had written ostensibly an admonition letter (but actually a cautionary note), saying “corruption has taken place with the help of the Council of Ministers”. It was a clear indication that the constitutional anti-graft body, in a clear departure from the tradition of not risking hostility with the “powerful”, had taken a bold and courageous step. And over the years, CIAA has gained credibility and effectiveness and has booked many powerful politicians and high-ranking officials despite criticism that it chooses cases out of certain ‘vested interests.’ CIAA officials refute such allegations.

It was Koirala, who as premier and head of the Constitutional Council, had appointed current CIAA chief, Surya Nath Upadhyay. Journalist Hari Bahadur Thapa writes in the September 19 issue of Kantipur daily-“..Koirala had approved Upadhyay’s name for the post of chief commissioner of CIAA, without letting other members of the Council speak on the matter. When Koirala moved the Supreme Court instead of testifying before the CIAA, it gave birth to doubts- had he appointed Upadhyay to take his own ‘political revenge’? Did he feel betrayed when Upadhyay, who he (Koirala) had appointed to ‘right’ others, targeted Koirala himself, instead? It is the responsibility of Koirala to answer this question.”

Koirala had to pay a price back then: following some five months of street protests and disruption of business of parliament by the protesting opposition parties (in which, for obvious reasons, the letter from the CIAA had added more fuel to the protesting parties), Koirala had to leave the hot chair at Singha Durbar in 2001. The Nepali Congress leader later said he had decided to resign from his post after the Royal Nepalese Army refused to pursue rebels who had abducted nearly 70 policemen from Holeri in the mid-western district of Rolpa. The Army was first mobilised against the rebels in November 2001 only after the state of emergency was declared in the country.

This time around too, Koirala will not go unruffled. He is known for taking on powerful institutions like the King, Army, CIAA and even some external forces. But by speaking against the Supreme Court he has certainly chosen the wrong target. The way media, civil society and his own party responded to his criticism of the court showed that the court is still considered a sacrosanct institution despite many flaws.

Perhaps the solace for Koirala is that the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal, 1990, considers country’s court as an independent judiciary that is responsible to uphold rule of law in the country– for which Koirala has fought relentlessly throughout his six-decade long political career.