By Our Reporter
The WhatsApp messages involving Chief Justice Manoj Sharma and Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal have exposed a troubling weakness in Nepal’s judiciary: the ease with which people outside the court system can gain access to judges and invoke their names to influence others. The allegations remain unproven, and the judges concerned have denied wrongdoing.
As the issue take center-stage in the country’s political domain, talks are doing rounds that alleged SC judged could be impeached. Now reports suggest that as parties including the RSP, have been serious to deal with the issue, the alleged judges have actually feared the impending impeachment
Yet their explanations have not settled the questions raised by the disclosures. The issue goes beyond the conduct of two judges. It points to a judiciary that needs stronger safeguards against political influence, private intermediaries and informal networks of power.
The messages reportedly show Sapkota seeking money deposits in Nepal and the United States while invoking the names of senior judges. Justice Phuyal has acknowledged meeting him at Hotel Himalaya, saying Sapkota introduced himself as a representative of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Phuyal has denied discussing a case in a way that affected its outcome. Chief Justice Sharma has denied knowing Sapkota or contacting him. These claims need to be tested against the messages, financial records and other evidence. The public should not be asked to accept either the allegations or the denials at face value.
Why do judges, who are expected to guard the law from political pressure, become accessible to middlemen? Part of the answer lies in the way influence works. A broker offers access, claims to know people in high places and presents himself as someone who can solve problems. He may offer protection, promise a favourable outcome or simply trade on a judge’s desire to remain connected to those who wield power. Such relationships can begin as social contact or informal requests for help. They become dangerous when private conversations touch pending cases, appointments or financial transactions.
Research on judicial networks shows how informal relationships between judges and political, business and social actors can create channels for influence outside formal court procedures. Brokers exploit these connections because direct access to decision makers is often difficult. They sell proximity to power, sometimes without having the influence they claim. A judge who entertains such an intermediary risks lending credibility to the broker and weakening the boundary between judicial office and private influence.
Nepal’s own appointment system has made the judiciary vulnerable to this problem. Political bargaining over judicial appointments has long fuelled perceptions that some judges owe their positions to party connections. A report by the commission led by former justice Gauri Bahadur Karki also identified political influence in the judiciary and called for wide-ranging reforms. When judges are seen as products of political patronage, brokers have an opening to approach them as members of a power network rather than as independent arbiters.
The present controversy also exposes a gap in the system for investigating allegations against Supreme Court judges. Judicial Council member Damodar Khadka says the council does not register complaints against them, while legal experts have pointed to impeachment as the route for action against a chief justice. Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard, but it is a blunt instrument for establishing facts. It should not be the only practical response to allegations that may require examination of communications, financial transactions and conduct. Article 153 of the Constitution gives the Judicial Council broad responsibilities concerning judicial discipline, but the procedures for dealing with allegations against judges who can be removed only through impeachment need to be clear and credible.
Reform should begin with an independent mechanism to investigate serious allegations against Supreme Court judges, with due process, protection against politically motivated complaints and public reporting of findings. Judges should disclose meetings with litigants, intermediaries and representatives of the executive when those contacts relate to pending matters. The code of conduct must be enforced consistently, and appointments should rest on merit, transparent criteria and public scrutiny, not party quotas or private understandings.
Judicial independence does not mean freedom from scrutiny. Judges need protection from political pressure, but they must also be answerable for conduct that threatens public confidence. The judiciary cannot claim authority over the powerful if its own senior members appear open to their intermediaries. The WhatsApp disclosures should lead to a credible investigation and institutional reform. A quiet internal inquiry or competing public statements will only deepen suspicion.
Login to add a comment