The Sapkota scandal is not really about Sapkota

The Sapkota scandal is a wider political and institutional controversy involving alleged fixers, judges, police officials, political intermediaries and leaked evidence. It matters because the investigation could expose not just individual wrongdoing, but weaknesses across Nepal’s judiciary, police and executive government.

Sapkota’s phone is important because the article identifies it as a key piece of forensic evidence. The central allegation is that it was kept from police for approximately 48 hours. Investigators therefore need to establish who held it, who knew about the delay, who authorised it, and whether anyone tried to alter evidence.

The controversy has reached the Prime Minister’s Office through scrutiny of adviser Kumar Byanjankar. The government is urged to investigate the entire chain of events rather than focus only on Sapkota or his alleged connection with former Chief Justice Rana. A credible inquiry could affect public confidence in several state institutions.

The alleged network is broad because the controversy is not limited to one person or one institution. The article names fixers, judges, police officials, political intermediaries and leaked evidence. It argues that public scrutiny has reached the top leadership of several state institutions.

Specific figures include Supreme Court Judge Hari Phuyal, former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s adviser Kumar Byanjankar. Sapkota’s meetings and interactions with Phuyal reportedly concerned ongoing cases. The phone allegation also raises questions about police officials and people connected to the executive government.

The article warns against a piecemeal investigation that targets individuals while protecting the system that produced them. It calls for a wider, time-bound inquiry involving retired Supreme Court judges, senior advocates and parliamentarians from ruling and opposition parties. That inquiry should examine the judiciary, police handling and possible executive interference.

The allegation against Kumar Byanjankar concerns the handling of Inam Sapkota’s phone. Byanjankar, identified as Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s political adviser, is reportedly under scrutiny for allegedly withholding the phone from police for approximately 48 hours. The article presents the phone as important forensic evidence.

The key mechanism is the possible delay in giving evidence to investigators. Police need timely access to relevant material while establishing facts. The inquiry must determine whether Byanjankar held the phone, who authorised or knew about the delay, and whether the evidence was altered or tampered with during that period.

The allegation matters because it reaches the executive’s inner circle. The article says withholding evidence would be a criminal offence if proved. It therefore urges the RSP government to investigate allegations against its own adviser as seriously as claims involving judges, police officials and political networks.

Evidence withheld from investigators can prevent them from establishing what happened. In this case, the phone is described as important forensic evidence. A deliberate delay or alteration could therefore affect the investigation into Sapkota, his alleged connections and the conduct of officials across several institutions.

The article says withholding relevant evidence for nearly two days would raise more than an individual misconduct question. Investigators would need to identify who held the phone, who knew about the delay, who authorised it and whether anyone attempted to tamper with it. Those answers could show whether the investigation itself was obstructed.

The consequences would extend beyond a possible criminal offence. The article warns that suspected interference by people close to the executive could damage Prime Minister Shah’s reputation and deepen an institutional crisis. It therefore calls for a full inquiry rather than arrests or action against selected individuals alone.

The Judicial Council is the constitutional body identified as responsible for issues concerning the misconduct of a sitting judge. Article 153 of Nepal’s Constitution is cited directly in the article. This allocation matters because judicial accountability must follow the country’s constitutional process.

The article applies this rule to Supreme Court Judge Hari Phuyal. It says relevant evidence from the inquiry into Inam Sapkota’s arrest should be forwarded to the Judicial Council. The Council could then begin its own internal inquiry into any alleged misconduct by the sitting judge.

This approach separates investigation from political punishment. The article says Phuyal must be investigated if wrongdoing is suspected, but he remains innocent until proven otherwise despite media coverage. Using the Judicial Council can help ensure that evidence is assessed through the proper institution rather than through unilateral action by the government or ruling party.

A sitting judge belongs to the judiciary, while the government and ruling party belong to the political branches. If either acted alone against a judge, it could appear that one branch was disciplining or controlling another. That would threaten the separation of powers built into Nepali democracy.

The article makes the point through Hari Phuyal and former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. Even if evidence exists against them, it says the government or ruling party must not initiate unilateral action. A judge’s conduct should be examined through the Judicial Council and other proper processes.

The stakes are institutional, not merely personal. Action against a sitting or retired judge could put two organs of the state at loggerheads. The article therefore calls for fine political judgement, parliamentary discussion and a broad task force. That process could address alleged wrongdoing without turning accountability into political retaliation.

The rule of law requires authorities to investigate alleged wrongdoing through established legal procedures. It does not permit punishment based only on media reports or political pressure. The article applies this principle by saying Hari Phuyal should be investigated, but considered innocent until proven otherwise.

A fair investigation would examine the whole chain of events. It would review Sapkota’s phone, the reported 48-hour delay, who authorised or knew about it, and whether evidence was tampered with. It would also examine judges, police officials, political intermediaries and executive advisers rather than selecting convenient targets.

This institution-wide approach matters because public scrutiny has reached several state institutions. A task force involving retired Supreme Court judges, senior advocates and lawmakers from both sides could provide broader legitimacy. Referring judicial conduct to the Judicial Council would also respect constitutional roles and help restore credibility in the judiciary.