By Jagdish Dahal
The 16th All Nepal Lawyers National Conference organized by the Nepal Bar saw its completion on May 19 in Kathmandu. The three-day event, inaugurated on May 17, arguably saw its most meaningful day on the opening itself. Upon entering the venue, one thing immediately stood out among others: the placement of guests on the stage. Nepal Bar’s president, Gopal Krishna Ghimire, made a notable departure from tradition in this regard by allocating seats for only four figures: the president, the prime minister, the chief justice, and himself. It was surprising and somewhat disappointing to see that senior advocate Sarbagya Ratna Tuladhar, despite his notable contributions to Nepal’s legal field, was not provided a seat on stage. After extending an invitation for his physical presence at the event, it should have been a common courtesy to grant him a seat on the stage and allow him to share a few words of his own.
Other than this little impediment that soured many spirits, there was another interesting aspect in this inauguration ceremony that piqued interest, the strikingly different speeches of the president and the prime minister. President Ramchandra Paudel centered his speech around the judiciary: the types of decisions it should make, the judiciary desired by Nepalese citizens, and potential future reforms. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal opted to deliver a contrasting speech, focusing instead on the activities done by the bar in the past, its support during past political movements, and highlighting how they encouraged him to increase his grant and support for the successful conclusion of this conference. Needless to say, the speech of these two heads of state and chief executive definitely stood out and left an impression on the attendees. Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha on the other hand chose to simply reflect on the current activities of the judiciary, legal proceedings and scrutiny, and the judiciary’s way forward in the face of challenges.
While evaluating the content of the concluded program, it becomes ineluctable to discuss other activities carried out over the span of these three days. The conference fee collected from the participants ranged from a minimum of Rs. 5000 to a maximum of Rs.18000. The available materials, facilitation, and the meals catered throughout the three-day conference, for that sum, failed to garner a positive response from the attendees. The lack of fruitfulness in what came out in the report edited and submitted by the coordinator and in the intellectual discussions during the event, in general, was also felt prominently. This could possibly be the result of the crowding of minimum fee-payers and the absence of the ones designated to pay a higher fee. Additionally, the tradition of issuing a concluding statement drawn from the presence of invited guests and the conference, as was done in the previous conferences’ concluding sessions, could not be maintained at this conference. In this sense, what level of significance this conference held, must have been felt and evaluated by the concerned parties themselves.
Finally, the critiques of the event would not be complete without addressing the astounding lack of media coverage of the said conference. A national conference is held every three years with legal professionals of this calibre; a gathering of distinguished legal professionals who bear the burden of the entire justice system and carry out its proceedings; such a meaningful national conference should naturally demand a certain media presence. The lack of media coverage, i.e., no news being published about the conference in prime media outlets, must be considered a notable shortcoming of this year’s conference. This could go as far as raising doubts in the leadership of the bar. How likely is it that a leadership of this kind will hold the power to raise issues regarding constitutional amendments and influence actions to be carried out by the state? This too has become a matter for us to ponder and observe in the days to come.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment