In Nepal, law, justice, and even the Constitution often look strong only on paper. In reality, many people feel these systems move according to the wishes of those in power. When the ruling side is angry, cases can be piled on an individual so heavily that it becomes impossible to stand back up. And when the same power wants, even serious cases that have already reached the court can suddenly be taken back.
This situation raises a serious question: do ordinary citizens still have any real reason to trust Nepal’s justice system?
For a long time, many people were saying that the Oli-led government had targeted Rabi Lamichhane, chairperson of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), out of political revenge. Recent developments have added weight to that claim.
On Sunday, the Office of the Attorney General under the current “Gen-Z government” effectively confirmed this narrative. The office granted permission to withdraw two major cases filed against Rabi Lamichhane by the previous government: organized crime and money laundering.
To be clear, these two cases have not yet been formally withdrawn. The concerned District Government Attorney’s Office will now file an application at the respective district court. Only after the court gives approval will these prosecutions be officially dropped.
Still, this single decision has brought huge relief to Rabi Lamichhane. With these charges set to be withdrawn, the path is now open for him to contest elections, become a Member of Parliament, a minister, and even prime minister. Politically, it is almost like receiving a clean chit.
At present, only one case remains against him — the cooperative fraud case. Even if, in the future, the court were to find him guilty in this matter, its impact on his political career would likely be limited. Under Nepali law, cooperative fraud cases allow for milapatra (settlement). Once a settlement is reached and the disputed amount is returned, the case can be effectively closed.
Some critics are calling the withdrawal process a “setting” or back-room deal. But there is another way to look at it. If today’s decision is a setting, then yesterday’s decision to file those cases must also have been a setting. If the cases were legally filed back then, then their withdrawal today must also be within the law. After all, the same Office of the Attorney General that approved the prosecutions earlier is now approving their withdrawal.
What becomes clear from this episode is something troubling: in today’s Nepal, law and justice often seem to follow power. The only real difference is whether the state power is in your favor or not.
In Rabi Lamichhane’s case, many legal observers argue that the only charge that reasonably applied from the start was cooperative fraud. He was not a member of any cooperative, he did not fill loan application forms, and he did not directly take loans. According to the parliamentary special investigation committee, funds embezzled from cooperatives by GB Rai were later brought into Gorkha Media, where Rabi Lamichhane was involved in operations.
Based on that, the core issue was misuse of funds after they entered Gorkha Media. If proven, the legal obligation would have been to return the amount. However, to suspend his parliamentary position, block his future political entry, and keep him in custody for up to 90 days, the money laundering charge was added. To impose punishment comparable to that of GB Rai, the organized crime charge was also included.
As power changed, the game changed too.
Now, Rabi Lamichhane is legally free to contest elections, return to Parliament if it is reinstated, and even, if circumstances align, lead a national unity government.
Whether this is right or wrong is for the public to judge. What seems clear is that the previous government used the power to file cases, and the current government is using the same legal route to withdraw them.
The Attorney General, Sabita Bhandari, issued the order under Section 36 of the Muluki Criminal Code 2074, directing district prosecutors to amend the cases with proper legal grounds.
The decision also relies on the parliamentary special investigation committee’s report, which states that while documents do not conclusively prove Rabi Lamichhane’s direct involvement in bringing cooperative funds into Gorkha Media, his participation is visible in the operational expenses after the funds entered the company.
In the end, this case does not just speak about one politician. It reflects a deeper reality of Nepal’s justice system — where law often bends, not toward truth, but toward power.
