Supreme Court’s Order to Not Arrest Sher Bahadur Deuba and Wife Sparks International Concerns for Nepal
The Supreme Court’s decision to annul the arrest warrant against former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife Arju Rana Deuba has raised concerns among experts about potential negative international implications for Nepal.
The Property Laundering Investigation Department had placed the Deuba couple under investigation and the government was reportedly requesting INTERPOL’s assistance for their arrest, but the Supreme Court revoked the arrest warrant through an interim order on Sunday.
The Kathmandu District Court had issued the arrest warrant on Chaitra 24 (early April) at the department’s request.
However, the Supreme Court cited a restrictive interpretation of the Property Laundering Prevention Act 2064 amendment published in the official gazette on Baisakh 18, stating that jurisdiction was not appropriate and thus revoked the district court’s decision.
Hearing a writ petition filed by the Deuba party against the district court’s arrest warrant, Justices Mahesh Sharma Paudel and Nityananda Pandey issued the order not to arrest on Sunday.
The court ruled that the jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants lies with the Special Court rather than the District Court, leading to the cancellation of the latter’s warrant.
During the Gen Z movement on Bhadra 24 (September 9), the Deuba couple was attacked and assaulted at their residence. Although they appeared in Nepal for some time after, they are currently believed to be abroad.
When asked about the letter reportedly sent to INTERPOL and its latest details, police spokesperson Abhi Narayan Kafle and the police INTERPOL branch declined to provide information.
On what grounds did the Supreme Court cancel the arrest warrant?
Photo Credit, RSS
The Kathmandu District Court issued the arrest warrant on Chaitra 24 at the request of the Property Laundering Investigation Department concerning their investigation.
However, the Supreme Court noted that those requesting and issuing the orders did not comply with legal procedures.
“It appears that the Property Laundering Investigation Department and the Kathmandu District Court did not follow due legal process when seeking and granting the arrest warrant,” the order states.
“Under these circumstances, the procedure for issuing an arrest warrant is not in compliance with the law.”
Section 16, Subsection (1), Clause (c) of the Property Laundering Prevention Act 2064 states that if there is a risk that a person may abscond, destroy evidence, obstruct investigation, or cause adverse effects, they may be arrested and detained legally.
However, the Baisakh 18 ordinance added restrictive provisions to the Act, assigning the authority to file cases to government prosecutors in the Special Court if an investigation advances.
The court relied on this provision to indicate that jurisdiction lies with the Special Court.
However, the order does not specify whether jurisdiction to issue warrants belonged to the Special Court or the District Court prior to the ordinance’s inclusion of restrictive language.
The department did not request an arrest warrant from the Special Court, nor is there evidence that the Special Court granted permission. This led the Supreme Court to issue the interim order to refrain from arresting.
Former Justice Balram KC stated that since the department requested the arrest warrant from the District Court before the ordinance was promulgated, the order should have acknowledged this timing.
“Instead of issuing a flawed order, the court should have allowed a proper procedure to be followed for reissuing the warrant and given the court an opportunity to consider it,” Justice KC noted.
“Had this been done, public doubts regarding the court’s cancellation would have been minimized.”
What message could this send internationally?
Experts caution that the Supreme Court’s highlighting of procedural errors involving high-ranking figures such as a former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister might convey a negative message internationally.
Hemant Mall, former police chief with experience at INTERPOL, said that INTERPOL would seriously scrutinize the procedural mistakes highlighted in the Deuba couple’s writ petition, especially given their alleged presence abroad.
“Raising a case on incorrect grounds violates the spirit of the constitution. Property laundering cases are tried in the Special Court, yet the District Court issued the arrest warrant. This does not demonstrate seriousness in the investigation,” Mall stated.
“Does the investigation agency knowingly or unknowingly make such errors? If it was unintentional, the entire case appears flawed.”
He also said INTERPOL would closely monitor internal procedural defects highlighted by the Supreme Court.
Mall further explained that INTERPOL examines not only legal procedures but also political bias and Red Corner Notices related matters.
“They take a serious view of whether a fair hearing was conducted, especially in the political context related to the September 8/9 protests,” he added.
Former Justice Balram KC also expressed concerns that this situation harms Nepal’s international image.
“This unresolved internal dispute has considerably tarnished Nepal’s international reputation,” he said.
“Improvement is needed. If there is a case, and the Supreme Court points out mistakes by the investigative body, corrective actions should follow.”