The Accountability Test: Karki, Yes—but What About Those in Power?
Lucky Chand
The question is not whether Dan Bahadur Karki should be investigated. It is whether the same standard will apply to everyone. The Inspector General of Police must not be shielded from an investigation if evidence raises concerns. Nor should anyone be spared scrutiny because of their proximity to those in power. If the evidence warrants an inquiry into Karki, it should proceed—and the same standard should apply to ruling party leaders, their associates and other senior officials.
After reports circulated that the government might remove Karki, senior police officials met at Police Headquarters for five hours. Police Headquarters then warned that it would investigate and take legal action against those spreading misleading information about the organization. Soon afterwards, journalists were arrested from newsrooms and police went to media offices. The Prime Minister ordered the journalists’ release, and all those arrested were freed. Yet key questions remain unanswered: Who decided to arrest the journalists? Where did the order come from? Why did the Prime Minister have to direct police to release them? Public reports do not confirm that the government had formally decided to remove the police chief. Speculation should not be presented as fact, but that is no reason to stop demanding answers about the decisions and officials involved.
Reports have also alleged that Karki was in contact with Inam Sapkota. News accounts say messages and other material reportedly recovered from Sapkota’s phone mention people in the judiciary, politics and security services. But a phone contact, photograph or name in a message does not, by itself, prove wrongdoing. Some people named in the reports have denied knowing or having links to Sapkota. No one should be judged guilty on the strength of screenshots alone; equally, an investigation should not stop because influential people are named. Police say the inquiry is confidential. Confidentiality should protect evidence, not shield officials from accountability. Authorities can disclose information that would not compromise the investigation, including who has been questioned, on what basis and what stage the inquiry has reached.
The questions involving Sudan Gurung and businessman Deepak Bhatta also demand transparency. A committee investigating Gurung’s assets and transactions submitted a 45-page report to the Prime Minister. According to published reports, it found nothing unusual in Gurung’s landholdings and established no direct link with Bhatta, but reached no definitive conclusion on some financial transactions and share investments. The government accepted the report but did not publish it; Gurung later returned as Home Minister. Why was the report withheld? Were its recommendations implemented? When the public cannot see the findings of an inquiry into a public official, it is hardly surprising that doubts about the government’s impartiality grow.
Questions have also been raised about why businessman Malpani’s assets were not included in a money-laundering investigation. Reports said the Special Court questioned why an alleged direct beneficiary had not been made a defendant in a case involving former Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel. This does not establish that Malpani is guilty. It does, however, demand an explanation from investigators about the status of his assets, any potential benefit and the basis for their decisions. Which parties were investigated, which were not, and why? The Department of Money Laundering Investigation should answer. If a potential beneficiary was excluded from the inquiry, on what grounds? If not, what is the status of the investigation?
If political figures have been named in the Sapkota case, the public also deserves to know whether they have been called to give statements. Being named does not make anyone guilty. But if some people are investigated while others are left untouched because of their political connections, public confidence in the inquiry will collapse. Decisions about whom to question must be based on evidence, indications of a person’s role and the needs of the investigation—not party affiliation, position or political convenience.
The same rule must apply to Karki. A political decision to retain or remove him must not be confused with an investigation into his conduct. Reports that he has been asked to resign do not, by themselves, prove that the government has decided to remove him. Alleged contact with Sapkota may be a line of inquiry, but contact alone is not proof of an offence. Police cannot intimidate journalists in the name of protecting the institution’s reputation. Nor can the government use an investigation as cover to suppress critical reporting.
It would also be wrong to call this a geopolitical conspiracy without evidence. But a lack of transparency fuels suspicions of political interference, and the government is responsible for addressing them. The parts of Gurung’s report that can be made public should be released; the status of the Malpani inquiry should be disclosed; and everyone named in the Sapkota case should be treated according to the same legal standard. Karki, too, should be investigated if the evidence warrants it. If it does not, the reasons should be made public.
The purpose of an investigation is neither to protect someone nor to make someone a scapegoat. It is to apply the law impartially. A government’s integrity is tested not by how forcefully it acts against its opponents, but by whether it is willing to hold its own people to the same standard. The question, then, is not only whether Karki will be investigated. Will those in power face scrutiny too?
