The Impeachment Recommendation Committee had readied 43 questions for suspended Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana based on the allegations lawmakers have levelled against him, as he appeared before the members on Wednesday to defend himself.

In the very beginning of the question-and-answer session, Rana challenged the legality of the impeachment motion saying the House of Representatives failed to follow due legal process as prescribed by its regulations.

He argued that the motion has already been null and void.

“I am here just out of respect to Parliament and lawmakers,” he said, claiming the motion has no legal significance, according to a member of the committee. “I request this committee to do justice to me.”

Rana is the first chief justice to face the recommendation committee in Nepal’s history.

Though an impeachment motion was registered in Parliament against then Chief Justice Sushila Karki in April 2017, the Parliament didn’t move it forward. The motion was later scrapped by the Supreme Court.

Clause 161(2) of the regulations of the House of Representatives says the Speaker has to finalise the date and time for the presentation of the motion in the House seven days after the motion is registered.

When the House is not in session, those registering the motion must demand its commencement within 15 days for the discussion. However, it took five months for the motion to be presented before the House.

Rana, citing the provision, said the motion had become invalid.

Ruling party lawmakers, however, said the motion couldn’t be presented owing to a prolonged obstruction by the main opposition.

In his defense, Rana blamed political parties, Supreme Court justices, lawyers’ organisations and the media for conspiring against him to serve their own interests as he was opposed to any external influence in the Judiciary.

“He pointed fingers at others to show he was right and innocent. His clarification lacked substance,” Min Bishwakarma, a member of the committee from the Nepali Congress, told the Post. “All the answers were driven by sentiments and didn’t stick to our questions.”

The committee could only ask Rana four of the 43 questions on the first day on Wednesday.

He will be quizzed on Thursday as well and the questioning could continue for a few more days, according to members of the committee.

On Wednesday, Rana even claimed that the impeachment motion was brought to make Deepak Kumar Karki chief justice.

After Rana’s suspension on February 13 following the registration of the impeachment motion by the 98 lawmakers of the ruling parties, Karki became acting Chief Justice.

Karki would have never made it to the position if Rana didn’t take early retirement or was suspended.

Rana’s tenure is until December 12.

Rana also accused former office bearers of the Nepal Bar Association of demanding the positions of chief judges and judges in the High Court and the incumbent leadership in the Supreme Court Bar Association of seeking favour for their clients.

“They launched the protests against me because I opposed their demands,” said Rana, according to Rekha Sharma, a member of the committee from the CPN (Maoist Centre).

The protest against Rana started with the justices boycotting the full court called by Rana for October 25 last year. The lawyer’s associations started their protests a day later which continued even after the justices returned to work. The legal fraternity continuously pressured the parties to impeach Rana. The parties, however, dragged their feet until the 98 lawmakers suddenly sprung into action on February 13 to file the impeachment motion, nearly four months after the commencement of the protest.

They claimed that Rana promoted corruption in the judiciary, gave access to middlemen for bench shopping, which is a term used for the unscrupulous practice of selecting benches through middlemen to ensure a favourable order, bargained with executives and failed to discharge his duties effectively, among others.

Sharma said they had prepared the questionnaire based on the allegations in the impeachment motion and the accusations and ‘evidence’ provided by different organisations.

Former Judges’ Forum, Nepal Bar Association and Supreme Court Bar Association, among others, had submitted lists of Rana’s “wrongdoings” and the “evidence” to substantiate the charges.

“Rana tried to project that everyone else is wrong and he hadn’t done anything wrong,” said Sharma. “He spoke whatever he liked without any proof to support his allegations. He largely failed in defending himself.”

While defending himself, Rana, without going into details, also said some promises were made [by coalition leaders] to the justices before the Constitutional Bench decided to oust then prime minister KP Sharma Oli and issued an order to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister.

“The justices were used against me. Why wasn’t the impeachment motion registered before July 12 [the day when the bench passed the verdict against Oli]?” he said. “I want to make it clear that the petitioners [the current ruling alliance which filed a petition against Oli] had made some promises [to the justices].”

Committee members say Rana breached his limits while responding to their questions.

“Rana breached limits while answering some of the questions,” Bishwakarma told the Post. “We will try to keep him on track tomorrow onwards.”

The recommendation committee on August 24 had decided to summon Rana for the clarification with a plan to present the report to the House of Representatives next week.

It requires a two-thirds majority in the 271-strong House to endorse the impeachment motion.

If the main opposition, CPN-UML, does not support the motion, it is certain to fail.

Krishna Bhakta Pokhrel, a member of the recommendation committee from the UML, said there is unanimity among all the members in the committee to conclude the investigation at the earliest possible and make sure the ongoing session of the lower house decides the fate of the motion.

“Studying and probing the allegations and collecting evidence to substantiate them is a complicated task,” he told the Post. “However, we have a common understanding that the ongoing session of the House should vote on the motion.”