PMO pressure pushes Smart Telecom case to court despite legal objections – The Himalayan Times – Nepal’s No.1 English Daily Newspaper

KATHMANDU, AUGUST 12

Despite protests and objections from several government attorneys and other legal officials at the District Attorney’s Office, the case was formally filed in court on Tuesday after the Prime Minister’s Office prevailed in its push to proceed with the prosecution.

Sources at the District Attorney’s Office told The Himalayan Times that the pressure exerted by officials from the Prime Minister’s Office was unprecedented and that lawyers felt they were being pushed to move with undue haste, despite serious questions over the legal basis and evidentiary strength of the case.

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police has claimed damages of around Rs 96 billion and named 22 individuals as defendants, including bank officials, in a matter involving the auction of collateral worth approximately Rs 5 billion.

Nepal Investment Mega Bank Ltd (NIMB) had auctioned Smart Telecom’s collateral after the company failed to repay a loan obtained from the bank.

“Officials from the Prime Minister’s Office were pressuring us to turn the CIB’s investigation report into a charge sheet without making any changes,” a source said. “But under the law, government attorneys have the authority to independently assess an investigation report submitted by the police.”

Government attorneys can direct investigators to conduct further investigation, revise claims or drop charges against accused persons if allegations are not adequately substantiated. Sources said lawyers at the District Attorney’s Office had maintained that they could not proceed with the case in its original form because of shortcomings in the CIB investigation and a lack of adequate substantiation for some of its claims.

The lawyers also questioned whether the reasons cited for pursuing some of the defendants were legally sustainable, saying some of the grounds appeared prejudiced and lacked a clear legal basis.

The objections, however, failed to prevent the prosecution from moving forward.

According to sources, the government changed the official handling the case after government attorneys raised their concerns. Several lawyers have also reportedly sought transfers, saying the pressure had made it increasingly difficult for them to perform their duties independently.

Government attorneys had already expressed dissatisfaction when the CIB repeatedly sought extensions to investigate the Smart Telecom case. Several investigating officers were also changed during the investigation.

Initially, government attorney Mohan Khanal, who was undergoing job training, was assigned to examine the case after suspects were arrested. A government attorney undergoing job training cannot be assigned responsibility for investigation-related legal work, according to officials familiar with the matter. Khanal was subsequently transferred.

Shreeram Ojha then handled the matter for several days before he too was replaced, with lack of time and other reasons cited for the change.

On August 7, the CIB submitted its investigation report to the District Government Attorney’s Office, naming 22 individuals as defendants and seeking damages of Rs 96 billion. The office subsequently began examining the report and the evidence supporting the allegations.

Sources said the workload at the Kathmandu District Government Attorney’s Office was already extremely high, while pressure from investigating agencies and the government had made it increasingly difficult for attorneys to independently assess the case.

Government lawyers have reportedly reached a point where some feel they can no longer work effectively because of what they describe as sustained pressure to proceed according to the CIB’s conclusions.

The head of the District Government Attorney’s Office, an assistant attorney general-level official, has generally not been transferred within a year over the past five years. Shobhakanta Bhandari, however, who assumed responsibility in March, was transferred to the Office of the Attorney General after only four months. Santosh Sharma, a joint attorney, has since been sent to head the District Government Attorney’s Office.

Before Bhandari, Ram Hari Sharma Kafle had headed the office from December 17, 2024, to April 9, 2026.

Sources said the CIB itself has come under pressure from the new government to aggressively pursue cases, and that investigators were seeking to demonstrate that the government was taking action against alleged wrongdoing. The Prime Minister’s Office has also allegedly made phone calls to government attorneys in an effort to influence the handling of the case.

Other government lawyers at the Kathmandu office are reportedly seeking transfers.

“I would actually be happy if they removed me too. It has become very difficult to work here lately,” a district government attorney said.

The Smart Telecom case is not the only matter in which government attorneys have reportedly faced pressure since the government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah came to power on March 27. Previously shelved complaints involving former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and then Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak were also revived for investigation.

Legal officials have privately expressed concern about being required to work under what they describe as direct political pressure rather than being allowed to independently assess the evidence and legal merits of cases.

Corporate lawyer Senior Advocate Prof Gandhi Pandit said government agencies should not pressure government attorneys to file cases according to the opinion of investigating agencies.

“It is wrong to pressure government attorneys to file a case simply on the basis of the CIB’s opinion,” Pandit said, arguing that such pressure would be inconsistent with the government’s stated commitment to good governance.

He said that if the government wanted to intervene, it should insist on a comprehensive and fair investigation so that innocent people were not victimised.

“If government attorneys are told to file a case according to the CIB’s opinion, it means the government does not care about a fair investigation. In such a situation, innocent people may be victimised while the real culprits may go scot-free,” he said.

Pandit also questioned the legal basis for pursuing NIMB in connection with the auction. According to him, Smart Telecom had taken a loan of nearly Rs 4 billion from NIMB in 2019, and under the Bank and Financial Institution Act (BAFIA), the lending bank had priority rights to recover its loan from assets purchased with the bank financing.

He argued that regulations issued by the government in 2022 could not retrospectively alter the legal framework governing NIMB’s loan recovery process, which was initiated under BAFIA.

Pandit also questioned the CIB’s decision to drag Ncell into the controversy.

The case was ultimately filed in court despite the objections raised by government lawyers, bringing to a head concerns within the District Attorney’s Office that the prosecution was being driven by pressure and political considerations rather than an independent assessment of the evidence and applicable law.

For the lawyers involved, the issue now goes beyond the Smart Telecom case: they fear that allowing investigating agencies or political authorities to dictate whether and against whom a prosecution should proceed could undermine the independence of government attorneys and the principle of fair prosecution.