Centre for Investigative Journalism-Nepal
A district court has ruled that claims presented in a libel case filed against Centre for Investigative Journalism Nepal for its investigative report, ‘NepaLeaks 2019’ cannot be sustained.
Tourism businessman Rajendra Bajgain filed the case at the Lalitpur District Court against CIJ’s Editor Shiva Gaunle on February 1, 2019, claiming that the investigative report defamed him.
Bajgain demanded that the defendant be sentenced to two years in prison and fined up to Rs 20,000 in accordance with section 307 of the Criminal Code. But a bench of Judge Avani Mainali Bhattarai on June 6 held that the plaintiff’s claims cannot be sustained.
NepaLeaks 2019 was produced by CIJ following a year-long investigation in collaboration with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The report with a series of five news stories, published by CIJ on January 16, 2019, was re-published and broadcasted by almost all mainstream media outlets in Nepal.
The report revealed how black money from Nepal is channeled abroad, how big tax evasion scams in Nepal are connected to international tax haven countries, how money is sent to these countries, and how it is returned to Nepal in the form of foreign direct investment.
In addition to this, the report revealed the names of 52 Nepali nationals who hold bank accounts in Swiss banks. NepaLeaks revealed, along with evidence, that Bajgain also established a company in the UK. Bajgain, the plaintiff in the defamation case, went to court objecting to this.
“The verdict has once again established that any investigative report presented with evidence does not constitute defamation,” CIJ’s Editor Shiva Gaunle said after the verdict was delivered on Friday.
“The verdict, which has come at a time when there’s a debate over the credibility of Nepali journalism, enthuses professional journalists. Our challenge now, again, is to do objective and fact-based journalism,” he said.
The verdict came after a three-hour-long hearing at Judge Avani Mainali Bhattarai’s bench. Advocate Tikaram Bhattarai, who represented CIJ, said any news story backed by evidence cannot amount to defamation. He also said NepaLeaks 2019 was published under collaboration with various national and international institutions after a lengthy investigation.
Advocate Bhattarai pleaded: It is the constitutional duty of the press to monitor people who have public lives and the CIJ team did not do anything that would amount to defamation.
“For someone to be defamed, personal matters need to intentionally make public…Any material published to instigate a debate or discussion in the interest of the public cannot defame anyone,” he added.
Advocate Bijay Mishra, who is also a former general secretary of Nepal Bar Association, said any material presented by the free press with evidence cannot amount to defamation. He added that the news reports in question should be looked at through three sets of principles: “Is the material on the public life of person prepared in the interest of the public or not; is the material published with malicious intent or not and does the material in question aid in the instigation of a wider debate in the interest of the society and the country or not.”
“NepaLeaks has been backed by evidence, it does not defame anyone,” he said.
Advocate Madhav Gautam, who presented his arguments on behalf of CIJ, pleaded that the international declaration on press freedom, Nepal’s Constitution and laws enshrine a journalist’s right to raise questions related to people with public lives and issues related to public interest.
It is only natural for the press to monitor unregulated inflow of foreign direct investment in Nepal, he said, adding, “Any report that is intended to start a public debate and bring about policy change cannot be termed defamation.”
Advocate Bhakti Ram Ghimire, said that if any party feels affected by any report or editorial comment, the law allows the aggrieved party to seek primary legal recourse by going to the Press Council. He said that choosing not to follow the procedure and moving the court against a multi-year-long investigation does not make sense.
Advocate Sunil Pokharel, who represented the plaintiff, said that as the Constitution and prevailing laws guarantee a person’s dignity, any report that goes against such provisions defames the person concerned.
He said, “The press can write, but it cannot interfere in matters related to a person’s dignity. This is the reason why the constitution has a restrictive clause when it comes to freedom of expression.”
Editorial note: NepaLeaks 2019, published on January 16, 2019, was re-published by almost all of Nepal’s mainstream media outlets. After the report went public, we have received a lot of comments and feedback on it. A few people and organizations mentioned in the report issued statements to refute the report. There were also those who issued statements in the form of advertisement. All these may have raised curiosity among the readers about the neutrality of CIJ.
It takes time to follow-up on any investigative work. But, in the meantime, the issue reached the court. As the matter was sub-judice, we did not publish more reports related to NepaLeaks 2019. Now that the case has been resolved, it will be easier for us to conduct follow-up investigations. Despite various comments, criticism and refutations our report attracted, we stand by our work. We would like to take this opportunity to tell our readers that we shall continue to present fact and evidence based investigative reports in the days to come.
