- Rabi Lamichhane stated the government must justify its decision to remove IGP Dan Bahadur Karki, asserting the party's right to seek clarification.
- Conflicting statements from government and party spokespersons regarding who initiated the leadership change have caused significant confusion and public skepticism.
- Prime Minister Balendra Shah defended the government's stance, suggesting that national interest and executive autonomy should transcend political party protections.
- Former IGP Karki has filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court, seeking a legal review of the government's decision to remove him.
Kathmandu: Differences have emerged within the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) over the government's decision to remove Inspector General of Police (IGP) Dan Bahadur Karki before the completion of his tenure. The controversy has sparked divergent reactions, with party Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane questioning the need to blindly defend the move, while Prime Minister Balendra Shah has firmly stood by the government's position.
These conflicting remarks have placed the relationship between the party leadership and the executive branch under intense scrutiny, raising critical questions regarding who initiated the decision and what prompted such a premature change in police leadership.
Divergent Views Within the Leadership
Speaking to journalists during a visit to Chitwan on Thursday, Lamichhane asserted that the party was not obligated to endorse every government decision unconditionally. He maintained that the administration must justify its actions, emphasizing that the party retains the full right to seek clarification.
"Whenever the government takes steps it considers necessary to carry out its responsibilities, it is the government's duty to justify those decisions. The government itself will have to explain their rationale," Lamichhane stated in response to inquiries regarding Karki's removal. Furthermore, he clarified that the party had not issued directives concerning the transfers or promotions of senior police officials, including the IGP and deputy inspectors general. Dismissing rumors of a fractured relationship between the party and the government, Lamichhane underscored that both entities operate within distinct institutional boundaries and responsibilities.
Despite these assertions, Lamichhane's remarks drew immediate attention because they contradicted earlier accounts provided by spokespersons from both the party and the government.
Contradictory Statements Fuel Confusion
The rationale behind the transition has been mired in conflicting official statements. RSP spokesperson Jagadish Kharel maintained that the party had neither advised nor instructed the government to replace the IGP. Conversely, government spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel asserted that the decision was executed with the party's direct guidance and consent.
This discrepancy has left the public and analysts questioning the true extent of the party's involvement in the administrative overhaul. While Lamichhane's latest statements shift the burden of explanation squarely onto the government, they fail to resolve why party and government representatives presented starkly different accounts of the decision-making process.
Such lack of coordination is particularly significant given that the appointment and removal of the national police chief extends far beyond a routine administrative matter; it directly impacts the professional independence, institutional stability, and public accountability of the police organization.
Prime Minister Shah Defends Government Stance
Shortly after Lamichhane’s remarks on Thursday night, Prime Minister Shah took to Facebook to address the broader philosophy of governance, drawing a sharp line between protecting a political party and safeguarding the nation.
"Your cadres fight while your leaders sit back and laugh; our leaders stand up and fight, guided by humanity. That is the difference between protecting the country and protecting a political party," Shah wrote.
Although the post omitted direct references to Lamichhane or the IGP's removal, its strategic timing brought the underlying tensions within the ruling coalition into sharper focus. Shah appeared to defend the administration's autonomy, suggesting that decisions made in the national interest must transcend partisan politics. However, his statement did not address the specific administrative grounds for removing Karki.
Unanswered Questions and Legal Scrutiny
The Cabinet decided on Wednesday to relieve Karki of his duties as IGP, subsequently appointing him as the Prime Minister's Special Security Adviser, while Additional Inspector General (AIG) Dr. Manoj Kumar KC was named the new police chief.
While government spokesperson Pokharel defended the creation of the new advisory role to assist the prime minister on overarching security matters—stressing that Karki faced no disciplinary action and was merely reassigned—these explanations have failed to quell public skepticism. Questions persist regarding why a sitting IGP had to be removed prematurely, what specific criteria governed the selection of his successor, and whether the timing of the move was tied to recent, contentious incidents involving police visits to media offices and journalists' residences. At present, no official evidence has linked those incidents to the leadership change.
Seeking judicial intervention, Karki has formally challenged the government's decision by filing a writ petition at the Supreme Court. This legal challenge places the legality of the government's actions and procedural protocols under direct judicial review, which will determine whether the administration complied with established legal and administrative frameworks.
Ultimately, the controversy has unfolded on two distinct fronts: an internal political rift within the ruling party and a high-stakes legal battle in the courts. While the executive branch possesses the constitutional authority to execute administrative decisions within legal bounds, sweeping changes at the helm of national law enforcement demand transparent justification—especially when involving the premature departure of an incumbent chief. Although the Supreme Court may eventually settle the legal questions, the political and institutional concerns raised by this episode will require a far more cohesive explanation from the government.
