Supreme Court Issues Show-Cause Order to Government in Former PM Oli's Habeas Corpus Case

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has issued a show-cause order in the name of the government regarding the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. A single bench of Supreme Court Justice Meghraj Pokharel ordered the government to present the reason for arresting Oli with an urgent arrest warrant.

The show-cause order was issued in the habeas corpus petition filed by Oli's wife, Radhika Shakya, on his behalf. Similarly, in the case of former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, who was arrested alongside him, a single bench of Justice Kumar Regmi ordered the presentation of the reason for arrest in the habeas corpus petition filed by his wife, Yashoda Lekhak.

The Investigation Commission had recommended filing a case against them, holding them responsible for the crackdown during the J-N-G agitation on Bhadra 23 and 24. Based on the Investigation Commission's report, the current government arrested former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak on Saturday.

District Court Allows Custody for Investigation

Following a request to keep former Prime Minister Oli and former Home Minister Lekhak in custody for 10 days for investigation, a bench of District Court Kathmandu Judge Anand Shrestha on Sunday permitted their custody for five days for investigation. The court granted permission to detain them for five days in accordance with Sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code, 2074.

Former Home Minister Lekhak was presented before the court by the police, while former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who was admitted to Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital due to health reasons, participated in the court proceedings virtually.

The court order mentioned that the request for police custody was deemed appropriate for purposes such as recording the statements of the defendants, documenting the incident details from people to be questioned, and studying and analyzing the report of the Investigation Commission regarding the incidents of Bhadra 23 and 24.

The order further stated, "Furthermore, as it is evident that the defendant KP Sharma Oli is unwell and undergoing treatment in the hospital, this order is also issued to arrange for his effective necessary treatment."

What Arguments Did Oli's Lawyers Make?

In the habeas corpus hearing for KP Sharma Oli at the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Tikaram Bhattarai argued that the Council of Ministers cannot arrest anyone by making a decision. During the hearing on Monday before the single bench of Supreme Court Justice Meghraj Pokharel, Senior Advocate Bhattarai asserted that arresting former Prime Minister Oli by issuing an urgent arrest warrant was unconstitutional at first sight.

"It is illegal to arrest selectively based on the Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission's report," Bhattarai said. "The opposition should be given 24 hours to submit a written response, and the Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission's report should be summoned." The announcement was made to publicize Karki's report, but it has not been officially published. According to details received through the media, the 720-page report suggests further investigation and prosecution of KP Oli and Ramesh Lekhak. Arresting directly based on that report is not permissible," Senior Advocate Bhattarai told the bench.

Dr. Bijay Prasad Mishra, President of the Nepal Bar Association and Senior Advocate, argued that there was no basis for an urgent arrest warrant as former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak would remain under security cover.

Arguing in the hearing of Oli's habeas corpus petition, Mishra stated that former Prime Minister Oli, who suffers from kidney disease and is unwell, is not in a position to flee, nor does former Home Minister Lekhak appear to be going anywhere. Mishra said, "The government has misused the urgent arrest warrant. This is an extremely sensitive matter." Stating that the government's prejudice was clearly visible, he added that the basis for the extension of custody by the District Court could not be considered legal.

Senior Advocate Radheshyam Adhikari argued that Oli is a person who remains under security cover at all times. "He is a former Prime Minister. He is always under security. How can he flee?" he asked. "He has to inform the security agencies before going anywhere. But he has been illegally arrested, and his fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated."

"Secondly, the Karki Commission only gives an opinion regarding action," he said. "How can it direct criminal proceedings by applying this section of the law?"

"It was said that a decision was made to publish the report, but that report is not officially available anywhere," Adhikari said. "The government was formed on Chaitra 13, and the Council of Ministers made a decision that very evening, and overnight they were arrested claiming to have studied it."

He asserted that the Council of Ministers made the decision in a wrong manner. He argued that Oli could be kept outside custody as he would cooperate with the investigation.

Senior Advocate Ramanarayan Bidari stated that custody should only be requested if the investigating authority deems it necessary. "Arresting him by issuing an urgent arrest warrant is prima facie unconstitutional. There must be concrete evidence to keep someone in custody; how is it permissible to arrest immediately based on a report?" he questioned.

Senior Advocate Lalit Basnet argued that the government should make policy decisions and not directly decide on arrests. "The Attorney General has not even been appointed yet," he said. "Only the Attorney General has the authority to decide whether to file a case or not. If someone is arrested with prejudice, the court should immediately release them."

Senior Advocate Mukti Pradhan asserted that no one can be arrested directly based on an arrest warrant without a complaint application. "The arrest made based on an urgent warrant relying solely on a report is flawed," Pradhan told the bench. "The Karki Commission report lacks legitimacy. It is prejudiced, shows a chain of malice, and the process does not appear to be correct." He questioned what would happen to previous commissions like the Lal Commission and Rayamajhi Commission if the Karki Commission report were to be implemented immediately.

Arguing in the habeas corpus petition, former Attorney General and Senior Advocate Ramesh Badal asserted that Oli should be released on his own recognizance. Badal also stated that the opposition should be asked for a written response within 24 hours. Senior Advocate Badal also mentioned that the issues mentioned in the 720-page report of the Investigation Commission were specifically targeted with prior intent.

The hearing for the habeas corpus petition of Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, who was arrested along with Oli, also took place on Monday. Oli's petition was heard in Justice Meghraj Pokharel's bench, while Lekhak's habeas corpus petition was heard in Justice Kumar Regmi's bench.

Radhika Shakya filed a petition on behalf of Oli on Sunday, demanding immediate release, claiming they were illegally detained for investigation into the crackdown during the J-N-G agitation on Bhadra 23 and 24. The District Court Kathmandu permitted keeping both in custody for five days for investigation into the offense related to life.

The bench of District Judge Anand Shrestha deemed it appropriate to keep both in custody. The government lawyer had presented three reasons while requesting custody permission.

The Investigation Commission had recommended filing a case against them, holding them responsible for the crackdown during the J-N-G agitation on Bhadra 23 and 24. Based on the Investigation Commission's report, the current government arrested the then Prime Minister Oli on Saturday.