Rabi Lamichhane Faces Suspension from Parliamentary Duties Amid Ongoing Legal Battles

Kathmandu. Rabi Lamichhane, the chairman of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) who was elected from Chitwan Constituency No. 2 in the House of Representatives elections, will be unable to participate in his parliamentary role. Due to three charges against Lamichhane—cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering—he will remain suspended from his position despite being elected as a Member of Parliament (MP).

Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi asserts that since cases regarding money laundering and organized crime have been filed against Rabi Lamichhane under criminal offenses, he cannot even take the oath of office as an MP until the final verdict of the case is reached. According to Tripathi, this restriction applies not only to Lamichhane but also to anyone facing ongoing corruption cases under criminal offenses; they cannot assume responsibilities after taking the oath.

'Suspension from the MP post does not mean the position is lost; it means suspension until the final verdict of the case,' Tripathi stated, 'Therefore, the post is currently suspended, and if he is acquitted in the final judgment, the MP position will be retained.'

Previously, the then-Speaker Devraj Ghimire had published a notice of suspension after cases related to the Swarnalakshmi Cooperative fraud in Kaski, along with charges of money laundering and organized crime, were filed against Lamichhane. Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stipulates that any employee, official, or public servant shall be automatically suspended until the case is resolved.

Some time ago, Lamichhane had submitted an application to the Attorney General's Office to amend the indictment. Attorney General Savita Bhandari decided on 2082 Poush 30 to amend the indictment filed in the district courts of Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi, and Parsa against Lamichhane in a way that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'money laundering' would not stand. This decision argued that the charges against Lamichhane were based on political vendetta and that the interests of the depositors should be prioritized.

After the Attorney General's Office proceeded with the case amendment process, Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal, and Yuvraj Paudel filed a writ petition against that decision in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ordered the Attorney General's Office to submit a written response in this case. This case is currently sub judice in the Supreme Court.

If the District Government Attorney's Office is permitted to amend the prosecution in the applications submitted to the Kaski District Court and Rupandehi District Court, following the Supreme Court opening the path for withdrawing the case, Lamichhane will be able to enter parliament. However, if the District Court refuses to accept the case amendment, he will not be able to enter parliament until the final verdict of the case is reached.

The Supreme Court will need to examine various aspects while hearing the writ petition filed against the amendment of the charges against Lamichhane. The court will have to interpret Section 36 of the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code. Subsection 1 of Section 36 of the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code states that 'If, after a case has been filed in court, additional evidence is found necessitating an amendment to the previously made claim, the concerned government attorney, with the approval of the Attorney General, may submit an application to the concerned court of the initial stage, stating the reasons for amending the indictment.'

Subsection (2) mentions that if an application is received pursuant to Subsection (1) and its content appears reasonable, the concerned court may issue an order to amend the claim in the indictment as per the application. However, the Attorney General's Office's decision does not clarify what additional evidence was found to warrant the amendment of the charges of organized crime and money laundering leveled against Lamichhane. According to Subsection 1 of Section 36, the phrase 'if additional evidence is found' implies that the offense can be added or modified.