Review Nepal News

The govt. and PHC should prove the allegation labeled against Joshee

www.reviewnepal.com
  Kathmandu, Nepal      August 11 2018

 
The decision of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee (PHC) to reject the recommendation of the Constitutional Council to appoint Acting Chief Justice Deepak Raj Joshee in the post of Chief Justice is condemned from different sectors even raising a question mark over the attitude and intention of the incumbent Nepal Communist Party (NCP) led government. Not only the main opposition Nepali Congress (NC) but also the concerned stakes holders including Nepal Bar Association (NBA) have condemned the decision suspecting that the government would invite constitutional crisis in the country by creating conformation among the state organs. The PHC decision is taken as of an interference of the incumbent communist led government against of the judiciary. The recent act of the government is taken as of the interference of the executive in the judiciary. As the executive, legislation and the judiciary are considered as of the three fundamental pillars in the democratic system, these all should have function autonomously. The looming fear of now is that the decision would set the bad precedent to force the judiciary into submission to the executive and legislature. Similarly, the decision has also raised the question mark over the rationality of the PHC because it has resembled to have fully controlled by the government and its head NCP. 
 
Joshee’s nomination is rejected labeling him of being not qualified to lead the judiciary, failing to present his work plan with vision to lead the judiciary and failing to give satisfactory answers to the questions posed by lawmakers. His conduct, integrity and capability including the academic certificates (SLC or equivalent) were also questioned citing dubious. The constitutional provision allows the PHC not to make nominations of justices for the Supreme Court (SC) or other constitutional bodies and ambassadorship to mention fairness. But the decision of now has become an unprecedented incident in Nepal’s history that vetting nominees for higher constitutional posts were rejected even those with tainted characters and questionable track records. With the rejection of the Joshee’s name, Prime Minister KP Oli has also fallen under the question mark as the recommendation of the Constitutional Council (CC) led by Primer Oli is also rejected. As the PHC made the decision becoming a rubber stamp of political parties, particularly the government head NCP, it has also exposed its own independence and competence.  As the 15-member PHC rejected Joshee’s nomination by a two-thirds majority- all were from the ruling NCP and Federal Socialist Forum Nepal amidst a boycott by four lawmakers from the main opposition NC, it has failed to mention the past precedence of making unilateral decision. 

As we are also heading with the strong conviction that incompetent and fraud persons should be excluded from any public position, we will salute to the PHC if the allegations labeled against of Joshee, particularly the issue related to the academic certificate were proved independently. The concerned stake holders particularly the Judicial Council (JC) has to take responsibility regarding the academic certificates of Joshee. If the academic certificates were found dubious, he has to be removed earlier from the post on the charge of corruption. The concern of now is that why the JC and other concerned stake holders is remaining mum over the issue of ‘dubious’ academic certificates and the PHC lost the persistence to wait the fact-finding before rejecting Joshee’s name as Chief Justice. The widely raised question of now is that how and why he can be labeled as incompetent for the post of Chief Justice if he has already served for 22 years in the Appellate Court and four years in the Supreme Court. As Joshee has now gone on a 15-day leave demanding his academic certificate be independently verified by a competent authority, the government and the PHC should take responsibility to prove the allegation labeled against him because nobody has the right to raise any misgivings about the authenticity of someone’s academic certificate without having any hard proof.