Why Kaski Court’s Decision Could Reshape Rabi Lamichhane’s Case

Rabi Lamichhane is now close to walking out of one of Nepal’s most politically charged cooperative fraud cases with only a single fraud charge left standing after the Kaski District Court allowed prosecutors to withdraw organized crime and money laundering charges filed against him during the KP Sharma Oli government.

On Friday, the Kaski District Court approved a petition filed by the District Government Attorney’s Office to amend the original charge sheet against Lamichhane. With that order, only the cooperative fraud case remains active against the former deputy prime minister and Rastriya Swatantra Party leader.

The court’s decision has immediately changed the legal and political direction of the entire case because similar petitions seeking withdrawal of organized crime and money laundering charges have already been filed in other districts as well.

If those courts follow Kaski’s reasoning, and if the Supreme Court does not overturn the broader legal basis behind these revisions, Lamichhane could eventually settle the remaining cooperative fraud case through reconciliation and repayment mechanisms available under existing law.

That possibility had already been discussed for months inside Nepal’s political and legal circles. Friday’s order has now pushed it much closer to reality.

The cooperative fraud charge itself still remains.

But under Nepal’s legal framework, cases centered on financial misuse inside cooperatives can allow room for settlement if victims recover their money and both sides agree to reconciliation. The removal of organized crime and money laundering allegations dramatically weakens the criminal weight surrounding the broader prosecution.

The implications now go far beyond Lamichhane himself.

If this legal path ultimately stands, other accused figures in major cooperative cases — including G.B. Rai and Chhabilal Joshi — could also seek relief from organized crime and money laundering charges filed alongside cooperative fraud allegations across multiple districts.

How The Case Took A Political Turn

The roots of the current legal reversal go back to the Gen Z protest movement that reshaped Nepal’s political landscape last year.

On Bhadra 23, during the nationwide youth demonstrations, Lamichhane appeared publicly from Ram Krishna Dhakal’s vehicle after security concerns were raised around his movement from Nakkhu jail.

Soon after, an interim government backed by the Gen Z movement was formed under former chief justice Sushila Karki.

Karki then appointed Sabita Bhandari as attorney general.

That appointment would later become central to Lamichhane’s legal future.

On Poush 30, 2082, Attorney General Bhandari issued a decision allowing government prosecutors to revise charges filed against Lamichhane. The decision specifically opened the door for amendment of the three charges filed against him.

The move triggered immediate backlash.

Just two days later, on Magh 2, Bhandari issued another decision saying the earlier order contained an error and expanded the same legal facility to all defendants in similar cooperative-related cases, including G.B. Rai and Chhabilal Joshi.

The revised interpretation meant prosecutors could now approach courts seeking withdrawal of organized crime and money laundering charges while continuing cooperative fraud prosecutions.

That is exactly what government attorneys in Kaski and Butwal later did.

Supreme Court Still Has Not Settled The Core Dispute

The legality of Attorney General Bhandari’s decision itself was challenged at the Supreme Court.

Because the issue entered constitutional and legal dispute, district courts initially avoided making immediate rulings on the prosecution revisions.

Hearings at the Supreme Court kept getting postponed, and the case remains under consideration even now.

But despite that unresolved dispute, Kaski District Court judge Himalal Belbase on Friday decided prosecutors could proceed with revising the charges.

The Four Reasons Given By Kaski District Court

The court outlined four major grounds behind its decision.

• The original complaints filed by victims did not specifically mention organized crime or money laundering, making cooperative fraud the central issue requiring prosecution.
• The court said retaining additional charges could complicate the possibility of victims recovering their savings and reaching settlement agreements.
• The order stated that removing organized crime and money laundering allegations would not affect the main cooperative fraud prosecution.
• The court also concluded that prosecutors were not attempting to weaken the case but were acting while considering the interests of both victims and defendants.

The Political Question Now Hanging Over The Case

The legal arguments may continue inside courts, but politically the case has already opened a much larger question about power and state institutions in Nepal.

The country is the same. The laws are the same. The Constitution has not changed.

Yet when power was in Oli’s hands, government prosecutors and the attorney general’s office considered it valid to file organized crime and money laundering charges alongside cooperative fraud allegations against Lamichhane.

Now, after the political balance shifted and Lamichhane’s side gained influence, the same institutions are arguing those charges should be withdrawn.

Both positions cannot fully be correct at the same time.

What this case has ultimately exposed is how decisions around prosecution, criminal framing, and legal interpretation in Nepal often move not only through constitutional principles and legal reasoning, but also through the shadow of political power.