Chaukath believes that the convictions at the Special Court set an important precedent in the fight against corruption and impunity. However, a retrospective look at Sita’s long and difficult legal battle sheds light on the negligence of the investigating bodies in Nepal and on political protection. These systemic problems must be acknowledged and addressed as these cases go to the appellate stage.

Sita’s story is known to many. In November 2012, Sita returned from Saudi Arabia where she had lived for two years as a domestic worker. On landing at Tribhuvan International Airport, officials found that she was travelling on a fake passport and took her to the Department of Immigration at Kalikasthan. There, Khanal robbed her of the equivalent of Rs 215,000—her life savings—claiming that he needed it to pay for her release. Basnet then raped her at a lodge at a bus park, where he had taken her on the pretext of escorting her onto a bus home to Bhojpur.   

Sita’s story is not unusual. What made the difference was that Sita, despite all odds, reported the case. After protests led by Occupy Baluwatar campaigners, the state put together an investigative committee coordinated by Rajuman Singh Malla, joint secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

Despite a public outcry, the wheels of justice proved to be dysfunctional and slow.

Three weak cases

In December 2012, the state filed two separate cases at the Kathmandu District Court. First, a rape charge was filed against Basnet. He was found guilty in April 2013 and sentenced to 5.5 years in prison. We do not believe that long jail terms alone are good indicators of justice. But we are left wondering why the court did not find the maximum sentence of seven years necessary when convicting a state representative of a crime like rape?

Second, the state filed a thagi case against Pokharel, Koirala, Khanal and Basnet. All four were implicated in robbing Sita by police reports, by the Malla-led investigative committee report and by an internal investigative report coordinated by Bhola Shiwakoti at the Ministry of Home Affairs. A year later, in December 2013, Khanal and Basnet were convicted while Koirala and Pokharel were exonerated. Six months later, this verdict has still not been appealed by the prosecution as the court has not provided the initial verdict to the public prosecutor. An appeal would have served to strengthen the prosecution’s case at the Special Court.

In February 2013, the Commission on the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) filed a corruption case against all four officials at the Special Court. The sentence handed down on Friday was a step forward.

However, all three cases have highlighted deep flaws in our legal and judicial system. There are three pressing iss-ues with regard to Sita’s cases that need to be highlighted:

First, we have seen blatant police negligence in all three cases. In early 2013, we realised that the police had not arrested Pokharel and Koirala although an arrest warrant had been issued for their failure to appear at the Kathmandu District Court. The two accused had, however, been going to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority regularly. Why had the police not arrested them at the CIAA?

Police have been similarly negligent in investigating Pokharel’s and Koirala’s involvement. Khanal has clearly said in three statements that the two were involved. Both investigative reports have also implicated them and requested further investigation. However, the investigation of Pokharel and Koirala has been far more superficial than that of Khanal and Basnet.

Second, the lack of continuity of public prosecutors has weakened the cases. The prosecutor handling the thagi case was transferred just a few weeks before the hearing and the prosecutor handling the corruption case was transferred a few months before. We understand that public prosecutors are overburdened and under-resourced. But these transfers taking place weeks before the hearing are extremely detrimental as well as suspicious.  

Third, the impunity and political protection given to the powerful is clearly seen in how shoddy the investigation of Pokharel and Koirala was, which we believe led to their exoneration in the thagi case. Punishing junior officials without connections and money while allowing powerful senior officials to go free is an injustice in itself.

Simple demands

As the cases go to the Kathmandu Appellate Court, the following four small steps could make all the difference in Sita’s cases.   The weak investigation into Koirala and Pokharel must be understood as a result of the police’s negligence.

Public prosecutors should be transferred only after a closure of any cases that they are handling. If a transfer is unavoidable, a comprehensive case handover to new prosecutors should take place. If the defendants decide to appeal this verdict of the Special Court, we hope that the current public prosecutor handling Sita’s case will remain. Journalists and civil society must pay greater attention to such cases, especially as they go on the appellate level.

Families, friends, thinkers, activists, and political leaders must engage in serious public debate about a range of relevant issues around the case, including the law banning women under 30 from migrating for labour. It is because of the age ban that Sita travelled to Saudi Arabia on an illegal passport and was vulnerable to exploitation on her return.

There are many Sita Rais in our country. Often, their voices are silenced. Surely this Sita, who has spoken up and continues to fight, must get justice. Despite the flaws in this legal battle, we hope that Friday’s verdict will open more doors towards justice for Sita and others who would stand against such crimes.

- CHAUKHAT

Chaukath is a network of feminists who first got together in October 2013 during the Vote for Women Campaign, and who work to create a space where politics, society and culture can be examined through feminist lenses