Kathmandu, Jan 16. Attorney General Sabita Bhandari has again come under scrutiny after deciding to revise and withdraw organized crime and money laundering charges filed against Rastriya Swatantra Party chair Rabi Lamichhane. Criminal justice experts say the move runs against existing law and Supreme Court precedents.

On Monday, December 30, Bhandari approved a decision to amend indictments already under trial in multiple courts. She was appointed by Prime Minister Sushila Karki of the Gen Z led government. Legal professionals argue that the conditions required for such amendments do not exist in this case.

This is not the first time Bhandari has faced criticism. Earlier, she was accused of blocking prosecution in cases linked to an institution where she had personal investments. Questions were raised about ethics, yet the government took no action.

To facilitate withdrawal, instructions were prepared for district attorney offices in Kathmandu, Rupandehi, Kaski, and Parsa to submit applications to the courts. Legal experts say this approach is flawed. They argue that when multiple defendants face similar charges, the state cannot single out one individual for withdrawal or amendment to meet political goals.

Under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2017, prosecutors may seek an amendment only if new evidence emerges after filing charges. Lawyers say no such development exists in Lamichhane’s case.

The criticism has intensified because convictions in crimes such as money laundering and organized crime bar individuals from contesting elections. Election law also disqualifies candidates convicted of organized crime for six years after completing their sentence. The Money Laundering Prevention Act further mandates suspension from public office once such cases are registered.

Senior advocate Prof Dr Rajitbhakta Pradhananga said the attorney general has no direct authority to withdraw such cases. Courts must approve any request, and partial withdrawal is not allowed. He cited past rulings where courts rejected similar attempts.

Former attorney general Yubaraj Sangraula said only the cabinet can decide on withdrawing cases already before the courts. Even amendments, he said, require supplementary charge sheets. Constitutional expert Purnaman Shakya echoed this view, stating that the attorney general may decide whether to prosecute, but withdrawal must go through the cabinet with clear grounds.

Other senior lawyers described the decision as startling, arguing it appears designed to bypass legal barriers by reducing charges through amendment. Supreme Court rulings, including landmark decisions in corruption cases, clearly state that selective withdrawal without reason undermines justice.

Legal experts say the amendment route was chosen because direct withdrawal would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

People’s News Monitoring Service

The post Lawyers raise question over dropping Rabi’s money laundering case appeared first on Peoples' Review.