Memories must be jolted. It was strong man Girija Koirala who first challenged the judiciary and anti-corruption authorities and refused their summons to attend court. The inefficacy of the then system to drag him to court was later to be replicated in the challenge to the king’s authority to hold senior politicians at time of the Maoist crisis. Total party machineries were launched to ridicule both the king’s authority and the administrative and legal machinery which, then, was ultimately to collapse. The series of erosions in national authority resulted in the arbitrary replacement of the system with the current one with equal impudence and any attempt by state of checking the slide through means of controlling corruption ever since has failed. It is not surprising therefore the slanted approach to justice by means of anti-corruption Machinery has been a political topic ostensibly divorced from corruption. The first of these series after the political change has been the ostracisation of Lok Man Singh Karki when he was seen as targeting the political leadership for abuse of authority. Karki was so pursued as to be beyond the reach of the current state. The second instance was the manner with which chief justice Sushila Karki was ostracized in course of her appointment. Ever since, government has been facing charges of manipulating judicial appointments wreaking havoc on the fundamental principles of judicial independence, one result also being how the utter skepticism with which hearings on the newly ensconced speaker of parliament are to be approached.
And, so, the public take a very skeptical view of the sudden spurt of action that the anti-corruption authorities have taken on the Baluatar land scam case. Nor is it surprising that the Nepali Congress and its apparatchiks should take to the streets accusing the ‘government’ of singling out Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar. The distortion, moreover, is in the gross displacement of more powerful NCP members who have not been charged underling the impudent miscarriage of investigations at the very outset. Indeed, the fundamental distortion lies in the fact that the system has already undermined the independence of the carriers of justice. The fact is that the distance should have been believably enshrined in order for the K.P. Oli government to have allowed for the independent management of justice. Both the anti-corruption authority and the judicial authorities are part and parcel of government through action diminishing the concept of independence of justice as such. The problem is that the impudence has been so extensive that the Congress taking to the streets for Gachhadar is very much carrying the same impudence as government ridiculing the system itself. There should have been little bewilderment given that impudence has been a long standing behavior under a leadership that is currently beyond the constitution.