HOME PAGE
At long last, police to be assigned gold smuggling probe
After over two weeks of investigation for revenue leakage, government decides to examine scam for organised crime.
- PRITHVI MAN SHRESTHA
KATHMANDU,
Nepal Police is likely to take the lead in investigating the gold smuggling scam following strong indications of organised crime being committed, said a senior official of the Department of Revenue Investigation.
The DRI on July 18 had seized a huge quantity of gold from Sinamangal, Kathmandu after the consignment had passed the airport customs undetected, and had launched an investigation.
Then it sent the gold, hidden in cartons of motorcycle brake shoes and electric shavers, to the Nepal Rastra Bank, where the yellow metal’s gross weight was found to be 155kg.
But the government is being criticised for not initiating an investigation for organised crime even after it was revealed that the smuggling was well-planned and taking place with the involvement of nationals from multiple countries. Police had maintained that they had not conducted an investigation without the department sending them a formal letter to do so.
“As this is apparently a case of organised cross-border crime, the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Police will be involved in the investigation,” said Nawa Raj Dhungana, director general of the department. “We are discussing with the Office of the Attorney General on whether to involve the CIB in investigating organised crime or give it the lead role.”
As per Section 20 (2) of the Organised Crime Act-2013, if any agency other than the police receives a complaint of organised crime with evidence, such agency should immediately forward the complaint to a police office.
“If there are strong elements of organised crime, the CIB takes the lead in the investigation. But it is the DRI which leads probes into crimes where components of revenue leakage are more prominent,” said Dhungana. “In the latest case of gold smuggling, there are more components of organised crime. So the CIB is likely to lead the entire investigation.”
He said the DRI would soon write to the bureau to start an investigation for organised crime. As per the Organised Crime Act-2013, if a person commits a serious crime on behalf of a criminal gang, on the instruction of the gang and for the benefit of such gang, it is organised crime.
Any act that attracts imprisonment of over three years and the offences related to corruption, money laundering and financing of terrorist activities are considered to be organised crimes.
The department has so far arrested 18 people with the latest gold seizure. It also raided a factory at Tokha in Kathmandu, a suspected site used by smugglers for melting gold.
Besides, it raided the warehouse of Ready Trade, a private firm, at Sorhakhutte in Kathmandu and seized 66 boxes of motorcycle brake shoes. Many of the brake shoes were found to be lighter compared to those seized at Sinamangal, raising suspicion that gold from the shoes had already been extracted.
The DRI also raided the house of Rakesh Kumar Adukia, one of the prime suspects in the smuggling case, as a part of efforts to find actual owners of the seized gold.
The department now plans to write to the police.
Police said that they would start investigation once the DRI formally writes to them and provides relevant documents. “We heard that there was a decision to ask the CIB to initiate investigation for organised crime,” said CIB spokesman Superintendent of Police Sanjaya Singh Thapa. “But we are yet to get a formal request and related documents from the DRI.”
The government faced questions for not immediately initiating an investigation for organised crime as the DRI had arrested the nationals of multiple countries in connection with the gold smuggling case, suggesting it was a transnational organised crime.
People from Nepal, India and China were arrested soon after the seizure last month. But it took the department over two weeks to conclude that it is in fact a case of organised crime.
Various reports blamed Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal for the government’s reluctance to involve police in the investigation. Earlier, Kantipur, the sister publication of the Post, reported that the CIB had uncovered the involvement of senior Maoist leader and former Speaker of House of Representatives Krishna Bahadur Mahara and his son Rahul in the smuggling of 9kg gold last year. But they were not prosecuted.
On December 25 last year, the airport customs office seized electronic cigarettes. Parts of those cigarettes were stolen from the warehouse of the customs office, prompting the CIB investigation.
“We later found that the gold was concealed inside the electric cigarettes,” said SP Thapa.
During the investigation, police had confirmed a close contact between the Mahara duo and a Chinese national who was smuggling gold concealed inside electric cigarettes.
The main opposition, CPN-UML, has been demanding a high-level probe into the matter. Though the government has shown no interest in forming such a committee, it has now decided to investigate the latest smuggling episode for organised crime.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Dahal held a joint meeting with Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, Home Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka, Attorney General Dinmani Pokharel, Inspector General of Police Basanta Kunwar, Central Investigation Bureau chief Kiran Bajracharya and DRI Director General Nawa Raj Dhungana, according to the officials privy to the developments.
At the meeting, the prime minister took stock of the progress made in the gold smuggling probe, said Attorney General Pokharel. “He instructed government agencies to expedite the investigation as per the law.”
At the meeting, DRI Director General Dhungana said there was sufficient ground to investigate the case as organised crime.
“I suggested that the department should write to the police to investigate the case after its chief clarified that there were elements of organised crime,” said Pokharel.
Some experts, including former Deputy Inspector General of Police Hemanta Malla Thakuri, had long been calling for an investigation for organised crime. “The nature of this scam leaves no doubt that it is a case of organised crime,” he told the Post.
HOME PAGE
Calls grow louder for making EPG report public, one way or the other
Nepal members of the panel and former foreign ministers even advise taking the suggestions to Parliament.
- Post Report
KATHMANDU,
A fresh debate has begun on what Nepal can do with the report of the Eminent Persons’ Group on Nepal-India Relations should New Delhi continue to defer receiving it. Experts have suggested that Kathmandu can make it public through Parliament in case India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi continues to refuse to accept the suggestions of the expert panel on improving and updating his country’s relations with Nepal.
An eight-member team had prepared a joint report five years ago suggesting the blueprint for Nepal-India relations in the changed regional and global contexts. The document has been gathering dust while the panel is disbanded, not least by the death of one eminent person and by other official assignments of some others on either side.
At an interaction on ‘Neighbourly relations and EPG report’ organised by the Tanka Prasad Smriti Pratisthan in Lalitpur on Friday, former foreign ministers and EPG members from the Nepali side said their patience was running out. They are of the opinion that either the two governments, which formed the taskforce, should disown the work or create a conducive environment for receiving it.
“If the government of India does not receive the report prepared by the joint panel, then the government of Nepal should receive it,” former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Kamal Thapa said.
The EPG was formed in 2016 when Thapa was foreign minister. He said that as the EPG report is only suggestive, it’s not mandatory for the two governments to implement its recommendations.
“If the government of India does not agree to receive the report, the government of Nepal should accept it. Then it is for the government of Nepal to decide whether to make it public,” said Thapa. “It’s a total failure of the government of Nepal to create an environment for the report’s receipt by the Indian side [first]. We should not make the EPG report a Pandora’s box.”
The Eminent Persons Group was mandated to review the 1950 bilateral peace and friendship treaty and suggest a new one as well as to address other issues like transit, trade, water resource, and border management between the two countries. The EPG consisted of four members from each side. After preparing the report some 61 months ago, the EPG members had agreed to submit it first to the Indian prime minister but due to India’s suspicions over some of the suggestions incorporated in the report, the panel has been unable to give their assignment a sense of completion.
Thapa suggested that Nepal-India relations could be improved by removing some irritants like the Peace and Friendship Treaty, boundary disputes, border management, inundation and by focussing on trade expansion and economic development.
Former foreign minister Bimala Rai Poudyal said that the EPG report remains locked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“If the Indian prime minister is reluctant to receive it, can it be submitted to the foreign minister or the foreign secretary? We have a mechanism with India at two levels. There is a foreign minister-level mechanism, which can receive the report,” Rai Poudyal said. “If the report cannot be received at the prime minister’s level, we have to seek its alternative. As part of public diplomacy, can our Parliament accept and make the report public? If we do not publish the report on time, there is a chance of it being outdated.”
Rai Poudyal, who served as foreign minister for only 42 days, admitted that she does not have much knowledge on the EPG report.
During his recent India visit, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal did not raise the issue of the EPG report with Indian leaders and officials. Dahal told Parliament and the media on his return from New Delhi that he did not take up the matter as that could spoil the environment for negotiations in Delhi. Former minister Rai Poudyal and other participants speaking on Friday termed the prime minister’s statement on the EPG issue irresponsible.
Another former foreign minister, Prakash Chandra Lohani, suggested that Nepal and India should work together on shared concerns and mutual benefits. “Unfortunately, that is not happening,” Lohani remarked. “The Indian establishment has not come out of its mindset of ‘umbrella doctrine’ propagated at the time of Chandra Shumsher Rana.”
On regulating the open border, the two neighbours had formed a committee of home secretaries. “We also agreed to explore the potential of navigation in Indian rivers long ago but we did not follow up on that.”
In the context of the government’s unwillingness to take up the EPG report matter with India, Lohani challenged the main opposition CPN-UML to press for tabling the report in Parliament. “Why is the main opposition not saying the EPG report should be tabled in the House so people will know what it suggests?”
A UML leader familiar with the nitty-gritty of the EPG issue is former foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali. “Based on my interaction with the Indian political leadership, I found a kind of illusion on EPG in the political leadership of India. The report has been grossly misinterpreted,” said Gyawali, who is also a deputy general secretary of the UML. “Even though we were ready to receive the report at the foreign minister’s level, that did not happen.”
When Gyawali travelled to New Delhi in December 2020 leading a Nepali delegation to the sixth Nepal-India joint commission meeting, there were discussions about receiving the report at the foreign minister level.
“We don’t think India does not want to accept the report because of a particular recommendation that was made. But it seems India has security concerns. A stable and prosperous Nepal is good for India but some people in India want ‘controlled stability’ in Nepal,” Gyawali said. That could explain why India is reluctant to receive the EPG report and to address concerns put forth by Nepal on disputed issues, he reasoned.
As there is no alternative to good neighbourly relations with India, it is the responsibility of the government of Nepal to talk to India about the EPG report, Gyawali suggests.
All four Nepali EPG members including Bhek Bahadur Thapa took part in the discussion. Thapa said that as age is not on his side, he wants to settle this issue once and for all and is consulting leaders and officials on what to do with the report.
Nilamber Acharya, an EPG member who became the ambassador to India after the report was prepared, said the panel was in favour of replacing the 1950 friendship treaty to suit the changed context. “The formation of the EPG was agreed upon at the top political level. It was included in the text of the joint commission meeting and Bhagat Singh Koshyari had also tried his best to submit it in both the countries,” Acharya added.
Acharya, as he revealed, had had interactions with several Indian leaders and officials including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former prime minister Manmohan Singh. “All of them were positive on the EPG formation. We are consulting among ourselves. If the government is not going to receive it, we will make the report public as we are accountable towards them as well,” said Acharya.
On the Indian side, Koshiyari led the team involving former Indian ambassador to Nepal Jayant Prasad, Professor Mahendra P Lama, and (the now deceased) BC Uprety.
In a democratic system, people have the right to know what the EGP suggests, said Rajan Bhattarai, another EPG member.
“This [the EPG report] was prepared in line with a widely practised model. This is not only an academic exercise. As India is emerging as a regional and global power, it should certainly be accountable and responsible towards its neighbours,” said Bhattarai.
HOME PAGE
India’s court temporarily halts conviction of Rahul Gandhi for mocking Modi’s surname
Gandhi is a fierce critic of Narendra Modi and his main challenger in the 2024 polls.
- ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW DELHI,
India’s top court on Friday temporarily halted the criminal defamation conviction of opposition leader Rahul Gandhi for mocking the prime minister’s surname. His party said it would now seek to have Gandhi reinstated as a member of parliament.
A fierce critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his main challenger in the 2024 polls, Gandhi was ousted from Parliament after his conviction by a magistrate’s court in March.
The Supreme Court stayed the conviction, which means it is temporarily halted while the court goes into Gandhi’s appeal in detail before issuing a final ruling.
Gandhi’s disqualification as a lawmaker also now remains in abeyance, said Live Law, an online portal for Indian legal news. Congress party leader KC Venugopal said the party would approach the Parliament speaker to restore his seat.
The court’s order also means that Gandhi will be able to contest next year’s general elections unless a final court decision goes against him.
Scores of his elated supporters danced to drumbeats and exchanged sweets as Gandhi briefly greeted them at the party headquarters in New Delhi. “Truth prevails ultimately,” Gandhi told reporters.
Gandhi’s party president, Mallikarjun Kharge, said it was “time for them [Modi and his party leaders] to stop their malicious targeting of opposition leaders.”
The ruling party’s “conspiratorial hounding of Gandhi has been thoroughly exposed,” Kharge said.
Despite its decision, the Supreme Court noted that Gandhi’s comments were not in “good taste” and that a public figure ought to have been more careful while making public speeches.
The defamation case involved comments Gandhi made in a 2019 election speech. Gandhi asked, “Why do all thieves have Modi as their surname?” He then referred to three well-known and unrelated Modis: a fugitive Indian diamond tycoon, a cricket executive banned from the Indian Premier League and the prime minister.
The case was filed by Purnesh Modi, who is a member of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in Gujarat state but is also not related to the prime minister.
Gandhi was sentenced to two years in prison but the court suspended his prison sentence in April. The conviction was upheld by the Gujarat state High Court so he filed an appeal in the country’s Supreme Court last month.
The Supreme Court said the trial judge gave the maximum sentence of two years to Gandhi. Except for the admonition to Gandhi, no other reason was given for that sentence, the court said.
The case against Gandhi, the great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and scion of the dynastic Congress party, was widely condemned by opponents of Modi as the latest assault against democracy and free speech by a government seeking to crush dissent. The speed of his removal from Parliament shocked Indian politics.
Legal experts had earlier said Gandhi’s case is unusual as defamation convictions remain rare, especially with the maximum sentence.
Gandhi on Wednesday reiterated in an affidavit before the Supreme Court that he is not guilty of the offence of criminal defamation. He said he will not apologise for his remark and that if he wanted he could have made it much earlier.
Gandhi also said that there is no community going by the name ‘Modi’ and so he cannot be accused of defaming Modi community as a whole. People having the surname Modi may fall into different communities and castes, he said.
Purnesh Modi said in his counter affidavit that Gandhi has shown arrogance rather than being apologetic.
India, with 1.4 billion people, is the world’s largest democracy. However, Modi’s critics say democracy has been in retreat since he came to power in 2014. They accuse his government of pursuing a Hindu nationalist agenda. The government denies that, saying its policies benefit all Indians.
The Nehru-Gandhi family has produced three prime ministers. Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother, Indira Gandhi, was assassinated while in office, as was his father, Rajiv Gandhi, after he left office.