- Nepal suspended AIG Banshiraj Dahal for allegedly leaking sensitive information regarding the relocation of former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana.
- Investigators are examining Dahal’s unauthorized visit to Rana and communications involving Inam Sapkota to establish if official conduct was breached.
- Questions remain regarding the nature of the security threat against Rana and whether Dahal's actions posed actual risks to security.
- The government faces pressure to provide evidence-based explanations for the leak allegations and the circumstances surrounding Rana's midnight removal from his home.
Kathmandu, Nepal: The suspension of Armed Police Force Additional Inspector General Banshiraj Dahal has added a new layer to the investigation surrounding former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. But while the government has now taken action against a senior security official for allegedly leaking sensitive information, it has yet to make public what information was leaked, to whom it was passed, or how it was used.
The Home Ministry suspended Dahal on Monday, accusing him of leaking sensitive security information and violating official conduct. A three-day inquiry has been ordered. The ministry, however, has not disclosed the specific information at the centre of the allegation. Until the inquiry establishes that point, the suspension itself cannot be treated as proof that Dahal committed the alleged offence.
Dahal’s name became linked to the Rana episode after the former chief justice was taken from his Maharajgunj residence around midnight on September 26. Police initially described the action as detention, but later said Rana had been moved to a safe location after authorities received information about a security threat. The government subsequently said Rana had not been arrested but had been relocated for his protection.
That explanation, however, has not answered all the questions surrounding the incident. Police and the government have not publicly explained the nature of the threat, who was believed to pose it, or why Rana had to be taken from his home to the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku rather than being protected at his residence. Rana was released to his family roughly 12 hours later.
The subsequent appearance of AIG Dahal at the police office has become an important part of the inquiry. According to officials familiar with the matter, Dahal, who is related to Rana, reached the Teku office after Rana had been taken there without obtaining the required permission. Investigators are examining whether that visit breached the chain of command and whether Dahal had access to or passed on information concerning Rana’s security situation.
Another part of the investigation concerns Inam Sapkota, who had been in contact with Rana. Police questioned Sapkota and later released him. Investigators are also reported to have examined communications between Sapkota and Dahal. Those contacts may be relevant to establishing how information moved between the people involved, but contact by itself does not establish that a crime was committed.
This distinction is important because the case currently contains several different elements that should not automatically be treated as one established chain of wrongdoing. There is evidence of communication between individuals, a visit by a senior police official to Rana after he was taken to Teku, and now an official allegation that sensitive information was leaked. What remains to be established is whether these events are directly connected and, if so, what information was exchanged and for what purpose.
Questions have also been raised about reports of a message concerning Rs 50 million. Even if such a message is found in a phone or communication record, its presence alone would not establish that money was paid, received, or intended for an illegal purpose. Investigators would need to establish who sent the message, who received it, what it referred to, and whether there is supporting financial or documentary evidence.
The same caution applies to the reported contact between Sapkota and businessman Dipak Bhatt. Contact between two individuals can be relevant to an investigation, particularly if investigators are examining a wider network of communication. But it is not, by itself, evidence of criminal involvement. Any connection between Bhatt, Sapkota, Dahal, and Rana must be established through records, statements, and other verifiable evidence.
The government therefore faces two separate issues. One is the administrative question of whether Dahal violated official conduct or disclosed sensitive information. The other is the broader question of what actually happened before, during, and after Rana was taken from his residence. The first has already resulted in a suspension and an inquiry. The second remains less clearly explained.
There is also a need to separate the issue of Dahal’s suspension from his pending retirement. The Armed Police Force had recommended extending his tenure shortly before the suspension. Dahal was due to complete his four-year term and retire on October 13. The recommendation for an extension and the subsequent suspension are matters of record, but there is no public evidence at this stage that the two developments were connected.
The three-day inquiry could therefore be significant if it provides concrete answers rather than simply confirming existing allegations. It needs to establish what information was classified or sensitive, how it was obtained, who received it, whether it was actually disclosed by Dahal, and whether the disclosure caused or was capable of causing any security risk.
It should also clarify the circumstances in which Rana was removed from his home. If the government had credible information about an immediate threat, the source and nature of that threat should be established as far as security considerations allow. If the action was purely protective, authorities also need to explain why a former chief justice had to be taken to a crime investigation office and why the explanation initially appeared to change from detention to protective relocation.
At present, the investigation has produced enough information to justify further scrutiny, but not enough publicly disclosed evidence to draw conclusions about criminal responsibility. The key issue is no longer simply who was in contact with whom. It is whether investigators can establish, with evidence, what was communicated, what action followed, and whether any law or official duty was breached.
Until those questions are answered, the suspension of AIG Dahal should be viewed as an administrative step pending investigation, while the circumstances surrounding Rana’s removal from his home remain a matter requiring a clear and evidence-based explanation.
