KATHMANDU: The week gone by in Nepal’s political landscape reveals a nation grappling with deepening tensions between political power, public perception, and institutional accountability. At the center of attention is the transfer of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) chair Rabi Lamichhane from Bhairahawa to Kathmandu after spending 126 days in judicial custody.
However, this development is not isolated—it sits within a broader context of party instability, governance reform controversies, corruption trials, and infrastructure milestones, all of which reflect the fragile yet functioning state of Nepal’s democratic institutions.
Rabi Lamichhane: Transfer, Symbolism, and Strategy
Rabi Lamichhane’s transfer from Bhairahawa to Kathmandu is technically a routine administrative decision. Yet, the political theater surrounding his relocation tells a different story. His supporters gathered at Tribhuvan International Airport to welcome him with fanfare, while his remarks to the media were carefully crafted to evoke heroism and political persecution.
By stating, “Even if they take me to Mars out of political revenge, I will not be afraid”, Lamichhane framed his pretrial detention not as a legal consequence of alleged financial misconduct but as a deliberate political attack against a rising anti-establishment leader.
His comment, combined with the revelation that he left a message on the walls of his prison cell, suggests a calculated move to mobilize sympathy, assert moral authority, and undermine public trust in the judicial process—a tactic reminiscent of other populist leaders across South Asia.
At the same time, the extension of the night travel ban on BP Highway until September 30 due to flood and landslide risks shows how infrastructure vulnerability continues to plague the country during monsoon season.
Legally, however, Lamichhane remains under serious scrutiny in connection with the Supreme Cooperative fraud case, where he is alleged to have been involved in embezzlement or mismanagement of savers’ funds.
His petition for bail with a bank guarantee of Rs 2.7 million—equivalent to his attributed share of the scam—was rejected, underlining the judiciary’s firm stance on holding high-profile individuals accountable during investigations.
The courts, including the Supreme Court and High Court, have so far upheld his continued custody, sending a clear message: no one is above the law, regardless of popularity or political capital.
Parliamentary Ethics and Accountability
While Lamichhane dominates headlines, another significant development has unfolded in Parliament. The resignation of Nepali Congress MP Ramhari Khatiwada as Chair of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee—amid allegations of manipulating key civil service provisions—has exposed the fragility of ethical standards in lawmaking.
Khatiwada was implicated in altering the “cooling-off period” in the Federal Civil Service Bill, a move seen as benefiting certain political interests and weakening institutional safeguards. His resignation followed sustained criticism from across party lines, and the parliamentary investigation led by Jiwan Pariyar held him morally responsible.
Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire’s subsequent directive to implement the probe report demonstrates an important assertion of parliamentary oversight, albeit reactive rather than proactive.
This episode has broader implications: it raises questions about the integrity of Nepal’s legislative process, the influence of informal political networks, and the readiness of parties to discipline their own ranks when credibility is at stake.
Party politics and legal validity
Two other legal decisions this week highlight the growing reliance on judicial bodies to resolve intra-party disputes—especially within emerging political forces.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Mukul Dhakal’s petition to be reinstated as RSP General Secretary cements Lamichhane’s control over the party and underscores how political conflicts are increasingly being channeled through legal means. Dhakal had alleged he was unfairly ousted for resisting internal factionalism and dubbed the party’s inner circle “Rabi’s Club.” The court, however, sided with the official party narrative.
Similarly, the Election Commission’s decision to uphold Ranjita Shrestha as the legitimate Chair of Nagarik Unmukti Party—despite attempts by Lalbir Chaudhary and Resham Chaudhary’s faction to remove her—suggests that institutional norms are being preserved amid political turbulence. These cases reflect a pattern where internal democracy is lacking within parties, forcing state institutions to act as arbitrators of legitimacy.
Anti-corruption and the rule of law
The most consequential legal ruling of the week was the sentencing of suspended Bagmati Municipality mayor Bharat Kumar Thapa to 8 years in prison for corruption. He, along with two other officials, was found guilty of misusing public funds—particularly through unauthorized extraction of resources to construct “Bharat Lake.” The court also ordered over Rs 100 million in restitution, a significant figure in Nepal’s local governance context.
This ruling reinforces the message that anti-corruption efforts are gaining teeth, even when those convicted belong to powerful parties such as the Maoists. However, concerns remain: Thapa had already been convicted in a related illegal asset case in 2024. This raises the question of why institutional oversight and preventive checks failed to stop repeated offenses earlier.
Development and diplomacy
Away from the courtroom, the signing of two major contracts under the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal Compact, worth $154 million, is a pivotal development in Nepal’s infrastructure roadmap. Following years of political contestation, the fact that MCC-related projects are moving forward signals renewed diplomatic cooperation and a shift from protest to pragmatism.
Nepal stands at a crossroads: whether the country moves toward strengthening democratic institutions, enforcing accountability, and rebuilding public trust, or slides further into personality-driven politics and institutional erosion, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, India’s approval for 200 MW additional electricity import from Nepal—raising the total export approval to 1,050.9 MW—highlights Nepal’s growing regional relevance in the energy trade. This development carries not just economic weight but also geostrategic implications, as Nepal increasingly positions itself as a green energy hub between India and potentially Bangladesh.
Public health and disaster preparedness
In the public health sphere, a spike in dengue infections, with 2,886 cases reported so far this season, reminds policymakers of the persistent threat posed by climate-sensitive diseases. At the same time, the extension of the night travel ban on BP Highway until September 30 due to flood and landslide risks shows how infrastructure vulnerability continues to plague the country during monsoon season. These are annual challenges, but their frequency and severity call for more systemic disaster management policies.
Conclusion: A crossroads of power
The events of the past week in Nepal represent more than just headlines—they reflect a deeper contest between personalized politics and institutional governance. Rabi Lamichhane’s case embodies the tension between populism and the rule of law, while parliamentary scandals expose the frailty of ethical guardrails within the legislative process.
At the same time, corruption convictions and infrastructure agreements show that state institutions are still capable of action when there is political will.
Nepal stands at a crossroads: whether the country moves toward strengthening democratic institutions, enforcing accountability, and rebuilding public trust, or slides further into personality-driven politics and institutional erosion, remains to be seen.
But one thing is clear: the battle for credibility—both personal and institutional—is now the defining feature of Nepal’s contemporary political era.
Comment