Allegation No 1 by government attorney

Kailash Prasad Sirohiya obtained citizenship certificate number 39698886 from the District Administration Office, Dhanusha, but it has been found that the citizenship certificate with the number was already issued in Shivaji Sah Teli's name.

Sirohiya’s defence

I am a sovereign Nepali citizen born in Dhanusha on December 14, 1962. I received school education from the local Saraswati Secondary School and college education from Ramswarup Ramsagar Multiple Campus Janakpur. I obtained a citizenship certificate with number 39698886 from the district administration office on September 10, 1979, from the body authorised by the law.

I obtained a new copy of my citizenship on October 15, 2000, as the certificate was old. But I have only one citizenship. My national ID card, driving licence, and voter ID were issued based on the citizenship acquired from the authorised office of the Nepal government. It’s been nearly four and a half decades since. Rumours have been spread that KMG chair Sirohiya has two or three citizenship certificates. However, neither the police nor government lawyers have filed such accusations. The charge sheet itself has refuted such baseless rumours. Our side would like to thank the police and the public prosecutor for that.

I have also taken a national identity card from an agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 27, 2023, based on the only citizenship I have received. The Dhanusha District Administration Office helped me by sending necessary details from the citizenship records as requested by Singha Durbar, Kathmandu. I have also taken a passport and the administration has helped me in the process as well. My citizenship number is the same in my national identity card and passport.

As far as the issue of my citizenship number matching another person’s is concerned, it is beyond my control. The responsibility after issuing a citizenship certificate to me lies with the state agencies. The certificate number is not a matter of a service seeker’s choice. I have no role if the number matches someone else’s. Its entire control, responsibility and accountability rest with the District Administration Office, Dhanusha.

Allegation number 2

As per the reply received from the District Administration Office, Dhanusha, in the record of adults dated 2033/34 BS, it appears that your name has been registered in the record book of citizens born in Nepal to foreign parents. Similarly, it appears the children of Ghansiram Marwadi (Sirohiya)—Gopal Prasad Sirohiya, Govinda Prasad Sirohiya and Poonam Kumari Sirohiya have naturalised citizenship while Kailash Prasad Sirohiya has citizenship by descent.

Sirohiya’s defence

My father was a well-known businessman in Janakpur, the founder general secretary of the Janakpur Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He was in the role continuously from 2009 BS to 2034 BS. My father obtained his citizenship on June 15, 1953. The Citizenship Act 2009 BS and Citizenship Rules 2009 BS were prevalent at the time. I was born in 2019 BS and am a citizen by descent. My identity is my legal right. In 2033/34 BS, mobile teams were deployed to distribute citizenship to those who had reached the legal age. That team also collected records of minors. So when the team came in 2033/34 BS, even though I didn’t get citizenship, my records were also collected. My citizenship certificate and those of my brothers were not issued at the same time.

Citizenship laws that changed every decade resulted in varying types of citizenship. Moreover, the types of citizenship of the children born before and after our father acquired his citizenship may have been different. I can’t answer about the laws prevailing at that time and the granting of citizenship by the authorities under the law. I am accountable, responsible and honest towards my citizenship. This is my answer.

Allegation No 3

Kailash Sirohiya obtained a copy of citizenship on October 15, 2005, but official signature was not found in the record book of the District Administration Office, Dhanusha, and the age of 18 was written for the date of birth. The date of birth is not mentioned in the record in question.

Sirohiya’s defence

The citizenship certificate that I obtained was from an authorised state agency. It is my responsibility to use the citizenship granted by the state only in accordance with the law and I am ready to face legal action if it is misused. However, it is not my responsibility to manage and control the state’s record book. Every year, the state allocates a budget and operates an office to manage and protect citizen record books. Therefore, the main responsibility of protecting such records lies with the state.

The relevant agency should take full responsibility if the government records are altered due to someone’s carelessness or ill intent. In my case, the state agency granted me citizenship only because I met all qualifications prescribed by the law and furnished necessary evidence. Now, if it is not protected, the responsibility falls on the negligent office or official. Should a citizen be held responsible even when the state agency fails to keep its records intact? This is not a judicious argument. This is just an attempt to discourage citizens. I do not support this.

Allegation No 4

In the copy of the citizenship received by Kailash Sirohiya, it was found that ‘age 18 years’ (December 14, 1962) was written in the date of birth column, whose fonts didn’t match with that of the age and other numbers written on the copy. The citizenship certificate has been faked by adding the date of birth inside brackets at a later date.

Sirohiya’s defence

As in the case of many other citizens, the handwriting of the government employee who filled out the details and the handwriting of the district officer who verified my citizenship are different. The employee who filled out the details is seen to have written only ‘age 18 years’ on the document while the officer wrote the date of birth in the box. But the writing inside the box has been enclosed in parenthesis with a red pen. The citizenship certificate is safe with me. I need not be arrested just to investigate this. Previously, only age would be mentioned in the citizenship, a requirement which was changed to the date of birth later. While the citizenship issued in 2036 BS (1979) mentions ‘age 18 years’, the copy provided in 2057 BS (2000/01) mentions the date of birth inside the bracket. This is a matter within the state’s jurisdiction. There is no need to arrest me.

Allegation No 5

In the citizenship issued in the name of Kailash Prasad Sirohiya on September 10, 1979, his age has been mentioned as 18 years. However, in the first copy of the citizenship issued to Sirohiya on October 15, 2000, his date of birth has been mentioned as December 14, 1962. When calculating the date of birth and the citizenship issual date, Sirohiya is found to be 16 years and 8 months old and not 18 years old as mentioned.

Sirohiya’s defence

I went to claim my citizenship certificate after I was legally considered an adult. The state granted me citizenship based on my records, qualifications and certificates. The state issues the citizenship certificate after verifying all the evidence and determining the age. It is not fair to question the service seekers about the certificate issued by the state itself.

Allegation No 6

Kailash Sirohiya’s records of documents to be submitted when taking citizenship were not found.

Sirohiya’s defence

Can a citizenship certificate be provided without presenting the required documents? I do not harbour such doubts about the state. Your honour, our side is ready to help in every investigation. If you had called us and said that such issues had been found in my citizenship certificate, we would have come any day and clarified the concern—that is our duty too. However, armed personnel were deployed and I was arrested from the office of the media house that I am the chair of without giving any notice—as if the country would have suffered irreparable damage had I not been arrested that day. This is an extreme abuse of state power. It is also an encroachment of the inalienable rights given to citizens by national laws. Our side again makes it clear that if there are any questions relating to the subject of citizenship certificate, we will readily be available to the court and the police to help in the investigation as and when needed.

Jurisprudence says that only such a person who is likely to destroy evidence or cause further damage to any affected person should be arrested. It’s been 44 years since I got my citizenship card. How does it hurt the law if I am not in custody? Second, how can a citizen alter the evidence held in the state’s records? So there is no reason to arrest me. If the situation for an arrest arises, the court should intervene and protect the freedom and constitutional rights of the individual. That is our demand.

***

Advocates representing Sirohiya had repeatedly tried to mention the case of the home minister’s dual passports and his alleged involvement in the embezzlement of deposits of multiple cooperatives. But after Judge Churaman Khadka asked them to only present instances related to Sirohiya’s case, the advocates said that Rabi Lamichhane’s case was in fact related to the arrest, and they made the following statement:

Your honour, this is not a debate on Kailash Sirohiya’s citizenship. Instead, the issue is related to Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane’s dual citizenship, holding passports of two different countries and the embezzlement of savings of depositors of multiple cooperatives. Like every other responsible media agency, Kantipur, of which I am the chairman, had also published and reported news on the issue of how Lamichhane, who had renounced his Nepali citizenship, became a member of Parliament and deputy prime minister and home minister. The seriousness and sensitivity of the issue have been proven by the decision of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. The constitutional bench had declared his citizenship illegal, which led to his removal from all public positions that he held.

The country’s constitution and laws weren’t written by Kantipur or any other media agency. But the media has the responsibility to remind everyone of the issues contained therein. For that very reason, Lamichhane held a press meet and slandered the Nepali media. Then he apologised for it publicly a year later. But right around then, news about the cooperatives scam started to circulate. The issue of embezzlement of deposits is not ordinary, your honour. It is the misuse of the savings in cooperatives and an injustice to the more than 7.1 million depositors who have saved up for their children’s education, parents’ medication and their own future.

Lamichhane was a shareholder, operator and managing director of the Gorkha Media Network Pvt Ltd, which has been accused of embezzling deposits from more than half-a-dozen cooperatives. This is not an accusation levelled against him by the media, it can be verified in the documents of the Company Registrar’s Office. Lamichhane’s involvement in the crime is made clear by the investigation of the Pokhara Metropolis, CIB’s reports and the chargesheet filed at the Rupandehi District Court. However, media outlets have been publishing news on how Lamichhane has attempted to put the case away and obstructed investigation. The Nepali media will stay firm on its duty.

On the other hand, the issue of passport fraud comes under the home ministry. But Lamichhane, who held passports of two different nations, became the home minister of the country. The media have been questioning if this is an attack on the constitution and law. But on March 20, 2023, the morning of Prime Minister Pusha Kamal Dahal’s floor test in the lower house, the Office of the Attorney General declared that Lamichhane’s case could no longer be pursued. Lamichhane’s Rastriya Swatantra Party had subsequently decided to support Dahal’s trust motion. The issue of an individual holding dual passports has already been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.

The writ against the Attorney General’s decision is being heard in the Supreme Court, and we do not want to discuss a matter sub judice in the court here. But our only question is, why can a person holding dual citizenships and passports be the home minister while a sovereign citizen of this country is arrested to exact vengeance? Are the nation and citizens supposed to just watch? When the government forgets its duty in frenzy or vindictiveness, citizens and the media raise their voice. Because they believe there is the judiciary to protect the citizen’s rights.