Legal Development in Nepal

Corruption Case of NRB Governor

In this post, in our earlier blog post, We had written that we will be updating you with the recent development on this case- case related to Governor Bijaya Nath Bhattarai as this case assumes a great significance among public. Here is a report published in Kantipur about the authenticity of letters presented by CIAA. If this is true, I think, the case is weak one and seems to tilt in favour of the accused.

KPMG official was never in Nepal for RB deal

KPMG, a Sri Lanka-based consulting firm dragged into the corruption case against Nepal Rastra Bank Governor, has finally replied to the Special Court, saying that it did not authorize A.N. Fernando to sign a consulting agreement with the central bank on February 6, 2006.Fernando is currently at the center of the controversy that has surrounded the case after the court raised doubts about the authenticity of the agreement bearing his signature. The court has not been able to finalize the case against Governor Bijaya Nath Bhattarai because of the questionable nature of the document.

“Mr. A. N. Fernando who was supposed to have signed said agreement with the Central Bank of Nepal on behalf of our firm has never been to Nepal and the signature appearing on page 3 of the agreement sent by you is not his signature,” KPMG said in a reply sent to the court on Monday.

KPMG was replying to a court letter sent on January 16. The court has asked the firm to clarify the authenticity of the document.

The question of the authenticity of the document arose after lawyers for Governor Bhattarai doubted the authenticity of a letter dated June 18, 2007. In the letter sent to Ranjan Krishna Aryal, investigation officer of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), KPMG said the signature appearing on the agreement was not Fernando’s.

Like the lawyers for the CIAA and those for the Governor, the judges of the court have also remained divided over the documents. Chairman of the court Bhoop Dhoj Adhikari has maintained that there was no need to verify the authenticity of the documents to pass a verdict in the case. However, two other members of the courts, Komal Nath Sharma and Cholendra SJB Rana, have been seeking to verify the authenticity of the documents. As the members are in a majority, their stance is prevailing.

The court is holding yet another hearing in the case on February 15.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: