- PM Shah and RSP Chair Lamichhane disagree over disciplinary actions following allegations involving judicial intermediary Inam Sapkota and high-ranking officials.
- Leaked communications involving Justice Phuyal and allegations against Chief Justice Sharma have triggered a credibility crisis and calls for parliamentary impeachment proceedings.
- Police raids on newsrooms and the brief detention of journalists sparked widespread condemnation, highlighting concerns over press freedom and government command responsibility.
- The RSP faces internal divisions over holding Home Minister Sudan Gurung accountable while lacking the parliamentary strength to independently impeach implicated judicial figures.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal’s ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is navigating a escalating internal crisis as a series of converging controversies involving the judiciary, the Nepal Police, and the brief detention of journalists put the government’s commitment to press freedom and institutional integrity under intense scrutiny.
The developments have exposed sharp tactical and political differences between Prime Minister Balendra Shah and RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane over how the administration should respond to explosive allegations implicating high-ranking officials in connection with alleged judicial intermediary Inam Sapkota.
Executive Disagreements and Cabinet Pressure
The controversy surrounding Sapkota’s alleged dealings has brought long-simmering friction between Shah and Lamichhane into public view. At the core of the debate is the scope and speed of executive action against implicated state personnel.
While Prime Minister Shah has advocated for a sweeping response—favoring broader disciplinary and legal action against all officials whose names have surfaced—Lamichhane has maintained a more conservative stance. The party chair has repeatedly stressed the necessity of establishing clear legal thresholds and gathering verifiable evidence before initiating high-profile proceedings.
These internal tensions culminated in extensive consultations, including a four-hour meeting between Shah and Lamichhane, followed by separate discussions with Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal. Central to these deliberations is the position of Inspector General of Police Dan Bahadur Karki, who faces mounting scrutiny following reports linking him to Sapkota. While the Prime Minister’s Secretariat reportedly favors a leadership change within the law enforcement body, Lamichhane remains hesitant to force out the police chief without definitive evidence, particularly given that the police administration is tasked with leading the investigation itself.
The friction extended to a high-stakes RSP Secretariat meeting on Saturday, where leaders debated the party's official stance. While the Secretariat directed the government to investigate recent law enforcement actions against media outlets and instructed its parliamentary group to address judicial misconduct, it stopped short of resolving core disputes. The party leadership remains divided over potential disciplinary measures against Home Minister Sudan Gurung, whose ministry oversees the police operations now drawing widespread condemnation.
Judicial Intermediary Allegations and Supreme Court Scrutiny
The turmoil within the executive branch coincides with a deepening credibility crisis in the judiciary. The controversy escalated following the publication of private WhatsApp exchanges between Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Sapkota concerning a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of businessman Rohit Gupta, who was detained under money-laundering charges.
The published communications reveal that Sapkota forwarded a screenshot of Gupta’s petition to Justice Phuyal, requesting its dismissal and claiming Prime Minister Shah was tracking the matter. While the court ultimately bypassed Sapkota’s request—releasing Gupta on a Rs 20 million bail rather than dismissing the petition—subsequent exchanges show Phuyal sharing the court order link and proposing a meeting at Hotel Himalaya.
Justice Phuyal has acknowledged communicating and meeting with Sapkota, maintaining that Sapkota presented himself as an envoy for the Prime Minister’s Office. Phuyal stated that he became suspicious when Sapkota began raising pending court cases and claims to have alerted the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. While Phuyal denies compromising judicial ethics or accepting financial incentives, the private interactions between a sitting justice and a court intermediary have drawn sharp criticism.
The institutional strain broadened further following the leak of separate documents reportedly retrieved from Sapkota’s mobile phone. The materials allege financial transactions totaling $198,333 over three months, alongside requests for additional foreign currency deposits into accounts belonging to Sapkota’s relatives. The documents reference several high-profile figures, including Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, RSP lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel, and senior security personnel.
Chief Justice Sharma and Lawmaker Pokharel have both categorically denied knowing Sapkota or engaging in any financial impropriety. In response to the growing fallout, Chief Justice Sharma convened a full-court meeting attended by 14 of the 16 Supreme Court justices to discuss the allegations, internal conduct rules, and the potential formation of an internal judicial inquiry committee.
Constitutional Barriers and Parliamentary Math
As the RSP Secretariat pushes for parliamentary action regarding the bench, any formal move against the judiciary faces significant constitutional hurdles. Under Article 101(2) of the Constitution of Nepal, moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court justice requires the signatures of at least one-fourth of the House of Representatives. Passing the motion demands a two-thirds supermajority—184 votes out of 275 members.
Because the RSP lacks the numerical strength to pass an impeachment motion independently, broad consensus across party lines remains essential. Political reactions among key parliamentary stakeholders remain cautious:
Nepali Congress: Party President Gagan Thapa signaled openness to an impartial inquiry but cautioned against selective or politically motivated investigations.
CPN-UML: Maintained that any support for constitutional proceedings would depend strictly on the substance and authenticity of the evidence presented.
Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP): Advocated for systemic judicial reform, warning that removing individual judges without addressing structural vulnerabilities would yield little progress.
Within the RSP itself, consensus remains elusive. While Lawmaker Yagyamani Neupane and Prime Minister Shah favor holding all named individuals accountable, Lamichhane prefers targeting only those officials with direct, documented evidence against them, cautioning against premature proceedings against Chief Justice Sharma.
Police Action in Newsrooms Sparks Press Freedom Outcry
Adding to the administration's political difficulties, a police operation targeting several prominent newsrooms on Friday drew immediate condemnation from civil rights groups, legal experts, and press freedom advocates.
Plainclothes officers entered the offices of Nepal Press, Naya Patrika, Diyo Post, and Motive News, seeking journalists responsible for reporting on potential changes in police leadership and the leaked judicial communications. Police briefly detained Nepal Press journalist Bishwamani Subedi and Motive News editor Shobharaj Baral before releasing them without formal charges. Officers also sought journalists Nawaraj Mainali, Sudeep Bishwakarma, and Madan Dhungana at their respective newsrooms.
The Press Council Nepal challenged the legal validity of the operation, emphasizing that law enforcement failed to present arrest warrants or state legitimate legal grounds for the detentions. The Council reiterated that disputes regarding published reporting fall strictly under statutory regulatory bodies rather than law enforcement jurisdiction. Press freedom advocates further warned that using police forces to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources represents a serious breach of constitutional guarantees.
The fallout intensified after the Prime Minister’s Office formally disavowed the operation, stating that Prime Minister Shah had neither ordered nor been informed of the action in advance. According to the secretariat, Shah instructed authorities to release the journalists immediately upon learning of the event and issued explicit directives against entering newsrooms.
The disavowal has left unanswered questions regarding the chain of command within the Ministry of Home Affairs and the police administration. During Saturday’s RSP Secretariat meeting, leaders questioned Home Minister Sudan Gurung over who authorized the raids. While some members raised the possibility of recalling Gurung, party joint general secretary Asim Shah and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle urged a broader governmental review over individual political sanctions.
The RSP ultimately instructed the administration to conduct a formal internal inquiry to determine command responsibility for the newsroom interventions.
Path Forward for Government Accountability
The convergence of judicial scrutiny, law enforcement overreach, and internal political division presents a critical test for the RSP-led coalition. Navigating these concurrent crises requires balancing administrative stability with rigorous legal accountability.
While political opposition continues to leverage the controversies to challenge the administration's stability, institutional observers emphasize that transparent, evidence-based inquiries remain the only viable route to restoring public trust. Whether the government can coordinate a clear regulatory and legal response without fracturing its leadership core will determine its ability to maintain governance stability moving forward.
