journalist and lawyers

The Nepal Bar Association’s opposition to Chief Justice Regmi assuming the post of the electoral prime minister has emerged as the strongest among the oppositional voices.  One can say that what Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) was to the Dekendra episode a month or so ago, the NBA is to the CJ choice as PM to find a way out of the impasse. Journalists and lawyers, as a Nepali Dalit intellectual reminded me recently, have their ears tuned to power.  And whenever social and state power seems to slip from their grip, they are the first ones to know, well before the general public. The Dalit intellectual was referring to the kicking and screaming of journalists and lawyers in recent years over change in Nepal. If one takes solely Nepal’s example, this may be more or less true — lawyers filing one writ after another in support of the status quo whether in matters of citizenship, the CA, various alliances forged by the Maoists with the marginalised forces or the more recent episode of the CJ. Members of the Nepal Journalist Federation and NBA have stood at various times in support of the status quo in the guise of human rights, nationalism, separation of power, or rule of law and democracy.

One can certainly dismiss both the NBA and the FNJ as regressive forces comprised of people overwhelmingly of one group trying their best to keep the old covenant alive so that power remains in the grip of the traditional elite in Nepal. But this easy way overlooks numerous counter examples of journalists and lawyers where they became torch bearers against colonialism, oppression and dominance. Gandhi and Mandela, both lawyers, encountered injustice at different periods in South Africa and took up the cause of the oppressed and the marginalised. The former eventually undid the might of the British Empire and the latter became an icon of humanity in opposing the injustice of apartheid. Abraham Lincoln and Thurgood Marshall, coming from two periods and racial groups, were both lawyers. While Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, fought the Civil War and lost his life while doing so as President of the United States, Thurgood Marshall successfully opposed Jim Crow laws in the courts of the United States.

The examples of journalists digging up cases of injustice from national and international obscure corners for public knowledge and justice are too numerous to count. The roster of journalists getting nominated and winning various prizes, including the Pulitzer in the US, tells the story of exemplary journalism devoted to the cause of justice, reining in unbridled exercise of wealth and power.

In Nepal’s case, the situation has been complex. Can the courts and the people associated with them be said to be fighting for justice or legality? By professional code of conduct and ethics, the courts must be independent from bias but have they been so? What is the relationship between law and justice? Is the legal always just or the just always legal? I’m sure those who have become lawyers and judges have encountered this conundrum as far back as their law school but these questions remain as valid in their careers even now.

If Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln and Marshall stand on one side, then there are the Pakistani lawyers who showered the assassin of Salman Taseer, the Governor of Pakistani Punjab, with rose petals in 2011 as the assassin was being taken to court. Taseer had opposed the death sentence against a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, accused of blaspheming Islam. Is it time, then, our lawyers, especially the NBA, did some soul-searching and answer some questions? Are they for justice or for legalese? Are courts just a means to conserve class or group power and oppose progressive change or a means to provide justice, fairness and equality to people? Is the Supreme Court a means to facilitate Nepal’s dynamic march into the future or obstruct it?

But, then, all this brouhaha over the Chief Justice assuming the executive post is ultimately for the good of Nepal’s democratic exercise even though it appears regressive and obstructionist right now. The opposition by the NBA is partisan and may very well be driven by all kinds of ulterior motives. For sooner the election, the faster will be the pace of change and sooner the demise of old Nepal. Nevertheless, the NBA’s opposition can be taken as part of the vetting process.

It offers another chance for parties to re-examine their decisions, sharpen their tools of persuasion, and reflect once more on the consequences of CJ assuming the post even of the electoral prime minister. It also tests the resolve of those who desperately want a way out of this present impasse so that the country can move on. If their resolve remains firm despite the opposition, if they still believe in their decision after reflection and re-examination, then their sound decision will have a better chance of success.

Posted on: 2013-03-07 09:04
Annapurna trekking
Annapu
car rental in Nepal
trekking guide in Nepal