- Nepali Congress's Pradeep Paudel demands an investigation into the Prime Minister’s adviser for allegedly mishandling a suspect’s seized mobile phone at his residence.
- Paudel alleges that evidence was tampered with while the device was held privately, including deleting messages and accessing the suspect's social media accounts.
- The leader dismissed speculation regarding Gagan Thapa’s arrest as a political move to distract from the Secretariat's alleged involvement in the scandal.
- The controversy has expanded to include concerns over Sapkota’s connections with high-ranking judicial figures and potential interference in police administrative processes.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepali Congress General Secretary Pradeep Paudel has questioned reports regarding the potential arrest of party leader Gagan Kumar Thapa in connection with the Inam Sapkota case. Paudel argued that Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s Chief Political Adviser, Kumar Byanjankar—popularly known as "Kumar Ben"—should instead face investigation over his alleged involvement in the matter.
Paudel’s remarks come amid growing controversy over the handling of evidence in the case, particularly reports that Sapkota’s mobile phone was kept at Ben’s private residence for two days before undergoing forensic examination.
In a social media statement posted on Sunday, Paudel questioned how a device seized by police during a money laundering investigation could end up at a senior government adviser's private residence. He emphasized that the police are responsible for maintaining secure custody of seized property to preserve the integrity of potential digital evidence.
His concerns centered on reports that the phone was allegedly used to access WhatsApp, Facebook, and other social media platforms during those two days. Screenshots were reportedly taken, and several messages were allegedly deleted.
"Under the rule of law, Prime Minister’s Chief Political Adviser Ben should be under investigation at this point. Serious questions remain unanswered: Why was Inam Sapkota’s mobile phone kept at the adviser's private residence for two days prior to forensic examination? Who will take responsibility for the reported use of social media, screenshots, and deletion of messages during that period?" Paudel wrote.
Beyond the handling of the device, Paudel called for a thorough investigation into Sapkota’s alleged connections with the Prime Minister and members of his Secretariat. He maintained that investigators must establish the nature of these relationships and determine whether anyone used political access or influence regarding the case.
Arrest Speculation Deepens Political Rift
The controversy has escalated politically following speculation that Thapa could be arrested in connection with the case. The reports have drawn sharp criticism from Nepali Congress leaders, who question whether the prospect of his arrest is politically motivated.
Paudel suggested that the focus on Thapa’s potential arrest might be an attempt to divert public attention from allegations surrounding the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. He argued that investigators should examine the roles of all individuals connected to the case rather than selectively targeting political figures.
Thapa has previously rejected allegations linking him to Sapkota, denying any improper personal or professional relationship with him, and has expressed full willingness to cooperate with an impartial investigation.
The dispute has developed into a broader political confrontation, with Congress leaders demanding answers from the government while challenging the impartiality of the investigation.
Controversy Extends to Judiciary and Police
Meanwhile, details surfacing from Sapkota’s mobile phone have extended the controversy beyond politics and into the judiciary.
Reports of alleged WhatsApp communications and contact between Sapkota, former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, and Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal have raised serious concerns about Sapkota's connections within the judicial establishment.
The matter reportedly prompted internal discussions within the Supreme Court, while both the Nepal Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association have called for an impartial investigation. These developments have renewed public focus on judicial accountability and the independence of the courts.
At the same time, ongoing debate regarding Nepal Police leadership—including transfers, promotions, and administrative decisions—has added another layer to the controversy. Legal challenges surrounding police administration have reached the Supreme Court, prompting wider debate over the relationship between the government and law enforcement agencies.
Although these issues are being discussed alongside the Sapkota case, any direct connection between police administrative decisions and the ongoing investigation remains to be independently established.
Paudel Demands Government Accountability
Against this backdrop, Paudel reiterated the need to clarify Ben’s role in handling Sapkota’s mobile phone. He questioned why the device was kept at the adviser’s residence, who was granted access to it, and whether its contents were altered prior to forensic analysis.
Ben had previously acknowledged concerns that Sapkota claimed close connections to the Prime Minister and his Secretariat to facilitate various activities and transactions. However, the circumstances surrounding the phone’s custody and reported digital activity remain matters requiring formal technical verification.
Referring to potential legal violations, Paudel cited Sections 92 and 93, among other provisions, of Nepal’s National Penal Code, 2017, which address offenses related to destroying evidence, shielding offenders, and obstructing justice. He urged authorities to ensure the proper preservation of evidence and to investigate any alleged interference with law enforcement processes.
"If the investigation is to be impartial, who should be held accountable—Gagan Thapa or Kumar Ben?" Paudel asked.
He further warned the government that rumors of arrest would not silence legitimate questions.
"Rumors of arrest cannot suppress questions. State power cannot conceal the truth. If you have the courage, answer the questions being raised against you first," he wrote.
The controversy currently centers on several unresolved issues, including the custody of Sapkota’s mobile phone, the reported digital tampering prior to forensic evaluation, and the nature of his connections with high-ranking political and judicial figures. Establishing the facts will require an impartial, evidence-based investigation rather than political allegations and speculation.
