ACC suspension order quashed by High Court

The High Court yesterday upheld its decision to sustain its interim stay order issued against the Anti-Corruption Commission’s (ACC) suspension order for the Home Minister and the Speaker.

ACC’s suspension order for the minister and speaker for the alleged offence committed prior to the current posts has been found to be not within the purview and scope of the ACC Act 2011 and the National Assembly Speaker’s Act, 2004.

The judgment says the ACC Act, which came into effect on July 5, 2011 does not retroactively allow the Commission to suspend public servants who are charged of an offense prior to the commencement of the Act.

The Court said that only those who were being charged under the ACC Act could be suspended using the Act. The Speaker and the Home Minister are being charged under the Thrimzhung Chhenmo and the 2004 Bhutan Penal Code and not the ACC Act which came in only in 2006 and was amended in 2011.

“The general principle of retroactive or retrospective application of laws, and the canons of legislative construction presume that legislation is not intended to apply retroactively unless a particular provision or the language expressly makes it retroactive,” said the High Court.

The High Court said this judgment would also apply to all 72 civil servants who had been suspended by the ACC till date.

The High Court also pointed out that under section 11 (5) of the Speaker Act, 2004 removal from the office of the Speaker would be possible, only if the Speaker is convicted of a crime or treason. Therefore the speaker could not be suspended as his suspension would be equivalent to his removal. ‖

The High Court ruling also states the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has the ‘locus standi’ or has the right to represent the government in this particular case to test the legality of suspension. The court said that this was possible under Article 29 section 3 of the Constitution where OAG is legal representative of the Government and also as per the OAG Act, 2006.

“The OAG being mandated to represent the government which invariably is established to protect the interest of the state and having submitted before this court, OAG does not have the right to defend the individuals for the alleged offence,” clarified the court. The High Court upheld the submissions of the parties that any personal criminal charges may be defended in person at their own costs or through a legal counsel of one‘s choosing as per section 33 of the CCPC or through a Ngotsab (representatives). This means that the OAG cannot defend those accused in the ACC’s Mongar Court case.

The High Court also made it clear that the Commission is empowered to suspend public servant under section 167(2) for the offence committed under the Act but the Commission is also obligated to inform the head of the agency of such order as per section 168 of the Act.

The High Court said that generally, the mandatory  pre-requisite to notify or inform the head of agency under section 168 by the  Commission (in the understanding of its legislative intent) is  to uphold the  principle of natural justice, protect public interests, eliminate substantial  risks to the functioning of  State machineries and burden occasioning from  such  suspension, assess the nature  or gravity  of  offences committed and  more fundamentally to  provide opportunity to make informed decision if  there was any contravening provision of laws that may provide personal and  Institutional immunities from such suspension order.

The High Court noted that section 93 of the Civil Service Act, 2010 provides that: A civil servant shall not be suspended or prosecuted in the court of law by any party for any act alleged to have been committed by him or her without notifying the Commission.

“What we thought was right, what we thought it should be was uphold by the court. All these should be done according to the laws, this is called ‘due process of law’, this is called ‘rule of law’,” attorney general Phuntsho Wangdi said.

The court order, however, stated that the application of sections 312 and 313 of the National Assembly Act, 2008 are the procedural requirement to disqualify a member and the duty of the speaker to relieve such member after having voted with two-thirds majority for not complying with other provisions of the said Act and not when a member of parliament is charged for corrupt acts or criminal offences.

The court applauded the ACC’s drive and it’s determined ‘effort to prevent, detect and root out corruption,’ at all levels with keen acknowledgement and the necessity of upholding ‘the fundamental principles of due process of law in a criminal proceeding and in a civil or administrative proceeding’.

The High Court verdict further states that constitutional bodies such as the ACC and OAG are to provide constitutional and statutory roles of ensuring effective check and balances and should work in harmonious interpretation, rather than impeding upon each other’s power.

The Home Minister Lyonpo Minjur Dorji said, “All these issues had to be sorted out and each individual and institutions has their own laid-down mandates that have to be done. None of us is almighty and we are all accountable be it media or parliamentarians. We all have our own responsibility, the democratic responsibilities. This is how it had to be sorted out. All laws that have been enacted have to be respected and foremost; the almighty law is the constitution, which has been followed.”

The ACC on November 15, invoking section 167 (2) issued a suspension order against the two members of parliament for the alleged commission of criminal offences in the Gyelpozhing land allotment case and having charged in the Mongar District Court on November 13, 2012.


Minjur Dorji & Puran Gurung / Thimphu

Check Also

Victim gets justice in Paro College rape case as court passes sentence

The Paro District court on 28th June, 2024 sentenced 2 male students of Paro College …


  1. Alright, what about the 72 civil servants that ACC suspended? They were suspended before proven guilty in the courts. Their family members were traumatized by such suspensions and arrogant approaches by ACC officials. I think some form of compensation deemed fair should be made to these people. Otherwise they have the right to file a case against the procedural lapses by ACC in the court and claim compensation for mental and emotional trauma. I am waiting for an editorial by this paper with many quotes from its ghost legal experts and bashing of the judiciary for upholding the restraining order against the suspension of Home Minister and Speaker.

    • phuntho you should change your attitude towards tsa-wa-sum. or you must not be geting chance to go into corruption due to ACC. i think if you r positive toward government you should feel proud to ACC and RAA. here it says the some lapses for not informing the head of agency. and 72 civil servant are suspended after informing to the head of agency.
      sorry to comment

      • Zam Zam, I don’t know if you failed to understand High Court’s verdict. It said ACC doesn’t have the power to retrospectively suspend the accused and this also applies to the 72 civil servants that ACC had investigated. Which means ACC doesn’t have power to directly issue suspension orders for the cases that happened before their Act came into effect. Though heads of the agencies were informed with respect to suspension of the 72 civil servants, the orders were directly issued by ACC. And that is not allowed. It would be a different story if ACC sought suspension of those civil servants from their respective heads of the agency. Do you see the difference here? ACC is doing a Herculean job but they have to follow due process and abide by the laws so as to avoid such controversies. Regards to my attitude towards Tsa-wa-sum you’ve no right to make a highly subjective comment. 

        • phuntsho why you are showing all your unwanted dialogue with almost all the
          forum users, someting is wrong with you, i also should say change your attitud
          throw all your eggoist, unmindful, and unnecessary pointing finger on others
          some thing is really wrong with you. and looks like you really have no work
          in the office if you r working in office, all the time i can see you baseless comments

        • It is not the ACC that should be blamed for misinterpreting the laws. They are not lawyers. It was OAG who should have advised them beforehand when they were assisting ACC for prosecuting those people. Only now OAG knew the laws when the prosecution effected high profile people. Why they remained silent before when their fundamental duty is to protect our people because government is for the people, by the people and of the people in a democratic culture? OAG failed to stand with the people of our country. They only know how to stand with people in power. If anyone to be blame for biasedly affecting those 72 cases, then it should be OAG not ACC.

      • Darma or Dorma, Look who is talking now. I am making baseless comments here, while yours is all substantiated by a foolproof reason? Give me a break mister. First Zam commented on my comment who also threw some character assassination. I just replied her thread justifying my stand on why ACC should compensate those 72 civil servants.
        Whether something is wrong with me or not is not your concern. And I must sincerely say that before you attempt to diagnose or treat other people you should seriously help yourself. On the contrary, you should change your attitude so that it enables you to think for yourself without having this paper or anybody to tell you.

        • hi puntsho shamefull on you part to point your finger to others all the time
          really shame full, and i really think others r rite to say on ur comments. now
          i really hate ur comments. all eggo problem,

          • i support phuntso for his comment and there truth in that…….sonam your arguement are baseless and you should be one who need some pshycratic help……….

  2. ‘“What we thought was right, what we thought it should be was uphold by the court. All these should be done according to the laws, this is called ‘due process of law’, this is called ‘rule of law’,” attorney general Phuntsho Wangdi said’. Damn you OAG, how dare you proudly claim that what you have done is right. If that is the case why you did not defend all 72 civil servants who has been suspended.

    My question to the HC is does someone have to appeal to you about the suspension, why HC did not revoke ACC’s suspension order for 72 public servants if that is the case. This clearly states that  there is two laws in Bhutan… Fair and justice in only in white paper in Bhutan….

    • We are seeing many dramas this days. All of us are watching this cases with interest and concern. The court and OAG should tread with cautiousness……some day we will see the light. Yes if the law is what they say it is, then what about those who were already suspended by ACC in the past? What is the role of Judiciary and the Govt in those cases? So many people have suffered because of suspension. Govt or for that matter RCSC or OAG or our so called lawyers never said what HC is saying now. Are they blind and deaf to those who are with no position? Whatever happens it will follow on. the precedent is being set and it is blow to ACC who are fighting corruption on behalf of us.
      ACC keep on fighting. You have peoples support.

    • I think you have not read OAG submissions therefore makes yourself so annoyed. OAG in their submission stated that commission have been informing the head of agency till date and directly suspending speaker and home minister was first of its kind. One day when u r in speaker or home ministers position, you will relize..ohh OAG have protected all of us!!

  3. OAG has to now defend all the 72 civil servants who have been suspended. speaker and home minister also a public servants. Voted servants that too. the Govt. has to weight the crime and corruption that they did, and the service that they are rendering. if the cost of corrupt overweight, they must be suspend anyway. just suspending 2 civil servants won’t affect the system. democracy has the right of people’s voice.

    • I dont think they have to defend because due process was followed in suspending those civil servants. The letter was sent to head of agency.. I guess it was reflected in oag’s submission.

      • Though letters were sent to the head of the Agencies I think the suspension orders were issued directly by ACC using the seal and signature of the Commission’s Chairperson. This, the HC rules as not allowed because it is not within the scope of the ACC Act. Yes it would have been right had the suspensions orders were issued by respective heads of the agencies following ACC’s directives. If HC ruling is to stand, there is not other option but to compensate those 72 civil servants for emotional and mental trauma during the caused by suspension.

  4. Some of the interesting abstracts from the HC Judgement.
    ‘Unilateral’ Decision of ACC????
    In criminal justice system anywhere in the world, search, arrest, detention, suspension etc are always done unilaterally and tactically keeping the element of surprise. For this very reason, some jurisdictions have what they call ‘Anticipatory bail’. If it were to discuss and do it, why would such provision be there. The only reason is that when it comes to big people, even laws can be bent and justices who are otherwise known to be upright loses their spine. This was a test for them, and they failed instantly!

    ‘Arbitrary Suspension’
    Being inquisitive, I took the trouble of down load and look at section 167 and section 167, subsection 2. It is quite clear, “a public servant who is charged with an offence under this Act shall be suspended with effect from the date of the charge till pending the outcome of any appeals”. Section 176 (kk) “Public servant” means a person who is a member, an officer, an employee of a public agency, whether appointed or elected, whether permanent or temporary, whether paid or unpaid and includes a person. If the offence does not fall under the AC Act, ACC does not have mandate to investigate. Because it was an offence of corruption, it was forwarded by the Prime Minister to ACC with instruction to investigate. Slowly Bhutanese are discovering the real side of Prime Minister. He is one of the biggest hypocrites, he send a letter to ACC to conduct a thorough investigation and coerces OAG to firstly say that there is no case and secondly OAG to defend the Speaker and the Minister. DPT is going out of sense.  

    Through paragraph 5.7 and 5.8, the Judges of the High Court tried to provide reasons and justification for their decision. If what they have stated is to be believed, then it is very safe to a parliament member for it will be provided immunity by the “so called interpreters of laws”. Basic question is just because a criminal act was committed in the past and surfaced now, do they mean to say that it was a different time. If your father was killed ten years ago, and if the killer is apprehended today, are you going to forgive merely because it was ten years old. Though it was a different, the fact remains same i.e. it was the same person who committed the crime. Before, he or she became Member of Parliament; he or she is that person which had committed that crime. 

    The justices have stretched the reasoning to a point where it will break any time now, when they talked about ‘destabilizing the government’. Are they talking of justice or are they worried about executive matter. Is this how they provided all the complicated check and balance they have borrowed and used in their judgement? There was no minister for Foreign Affairs (out of choice) for past three years. What has happened? Nothing. So, is it a far stretched to imagine that the government will be destabilized just because ACC right suspended the Speaker and the home minister.

    Though the judgement wanted to sound full of wisdom, basically it lacked reasoning and least was any sense of justice. It only support their own wrong doing. Even conducting hearing was just a white wash. If they were really interested in justice and due processes, before, issuing the court order on 19/11/2012, they should have called ACC. They condemned ACC without being heard and later when they knew what they have done was wrong, they summoned ACC and media too just as a cover up tactics.

    ‘concrete case or controversy’ all the cases have concrete controversy, otherwise it should not come to a court at all. The only question is, in whose opinion. 

    “Similarly, this Court also draws its mandated strength to fulfill the constitutional duties by way of judicial review to test the soundness of administrative decision as in the current controversy – to give meaning and life to our laws”………….

    In reality, the current case is a test for many organizations, including Judiciary and let’s not keep high hope, the spineless individuals will not only stoop but fall flat. The OAG has failed the test. First they said there was not case and second they were out to protect the very individual against whom they said they was no case.  The justices of the High Court too have failed the test. When it comes to big people, the justices can link all the laws. But we know, devil can cite prayers for its need!. The bottom line is it is risky to be no body in Bhutan. If what the justices pronounced become a case law. Now all those who are under suspension must go to high court and make a case. Afterall, they have pronounced that there is a concrete controversy and ACC must be charged for abuse of powers.  

  5. Going by the judgement given by HC, the criminals in this case ar e going to be acquitted by the Mongar court for sure. HC said ACC can’t suspend JT and MD because the ACC act came into effect in 2011, therefore could be applied retrospectively.
     Mongar court will be under pressure to pass the judgement on the same basis. The judgement will say the crime was committed  before the certain law was passed which could not be applied retrospectively or it will be like this….. The crime was committed when they were Dzongdas and they are not Dzongdas anymore… What a joke. These judges make it sound like Bhutan was a banana country few years ago. If the present law is not able to punish the criminals for the crime committed in the past, it should be thrown out the window.

  6. While I agree with the High Court ruling on bebarring the OAG from representing  the two ministers I tthink the HC erred in quashing the suspension order of the ACC. If ACC does not have the authority to suspend them  on the ground that its Act cannot be applied retros pectively then what businesses  does ACC have to take this ca se at all? So the question t h
    then should have been, Does the ACC have the jurisdiction to investigate this case? If yes, then it swould be aallowed to suspend them in orddr to carry  out the investigation and pprosecution effectively.  

    • Dasho Damcho, your first sentence of the comment is incomplete and biased. HC also ruled that OAG can ask for interpretations from HC or SC such as in this case. HC said OAG cannot represent the Home Minister and the Speaker in the courts to fight their case.
      Were you not there when ACC Act was amended in 2011. Were you not able to see such problems then? Could you not have ask for addition or deletion of clauses so that such discrepancies could be taken care?

      • Dear Phuntsho, the pproblem is not with the ACC Act. The pproblem is with the interpretation by the Court . If the ACC can investigate and prosecute this case how can the HC say its ssuspension orders were invalid ? Suspension is simply a  part of the investigation process as per the ACC Act  and not a punishment or sentence.  Hope u get my point.

        • Dasho, Soon we shall be informed that ACC cant prosecute. Like you said, there is problem with court’s interpretation but they are the ultimate guardian of laws. They have been harmonously interpreting the laws till date and making the new systems work. It clears the future part where we will not see such problems in days to come. OAG or ACC have no authority to clear those ambiguities and therefore take the matter of controversy to clear the path. I think that is democracy moving forward. Court is Court and we should have faith in what the Court says. if we keep saying court was wrong, who will be authoritarian when it comes to interpretation?

    • Dasho Damcho,
      We cannot judge regarding legality and illegality of the case. This is case between OAG and ACC. But there is another case between ACC vs Speaker ans Minister at Mongar court
      My question is, if HC finds illegality on filing case in court by ACC, does it mean that Speaker and minister should not be punished?

  7. Big fish are always saved…

    • We are always innocent and our acts are usually apprecaited by the few. We believe we’ve laws but follow laws with hearts and not with heads. There’s always gap between our heart and our head. And that gap is what we call information or knpowledge gap, which we all should have been informed by all. Now, whos fault is this, is it media? Is it govt.? Is it our represenatives? Is it your local leaders? Is it civil servants? Is it yourself to give to search for it? All these are something that we need to search and research. How court cases are being carried out? Who’s there to help you there or furnish you information with all this? This is survival of fittess. Reality is that who is there to feed you when you are hungry. Do we expect govt. to feed us or do we expect govt to find ways and means to find our food? Now, 72 civil servants who were suspended did not put up any appeals of its legality. They just accepted it and so all organizations were comfortable with that. If any of the suspended civil servants would have questioned the legality and defended it should have been a bit diffrent cases. Thats it. We know that there’s a big mistake from ourside first of all and from ACC and OAG. But above all its to blame oneself.

  8. The High Court’s ruling is a slap in the face to ACC which is the only ‘custodian’ of democracy that is doing its job without fear or favor. OAG who is supposed to be a partner agency of ACC to identify and penalize corrupt persons has prostituted itself time & again to protect some people. And now the High Court has put legal spin to fool of the Bhutanese public.

    The main premise of the HC ruling is that ACC Act of 2006 and 2011 does not apply because crimes were committed before ACC Acts were put in place. Excuse me but doesn’t ACC Act of 2011 automatically invalidate previous Acts / Laws? If an existing law or Act has no validity what kind of system do we have? Can India apply the 1949 Treaty tomorrow?

    MPs are supposed to be clean and have no skeletons in their cupboards. But when skeletons are unearthed they should ALL resign on moral grounds instead of hiding behind the skirts of the OAG and HC. Did the HC actually say the government will be destabilized if the some shady MPs are suspended? What a load of horse shit.   

    • I think something is wrong in our country. We are confused by the recent ruling and re-ruling where the suspension order of ACC is quashed by the HC. I am not a lawyer, but I am still not convinced by the explanation.
      In fact they should be doubly charged for cheating and running for election in 2008 which earned them Ministerial berth for almost 5 years and the court is telling that law cannot be applied retrospectively. This is what I cannot understand. Does the gravity of crime/fault diminish with passage of time? To me wrong is wrong. And there should be remedial measures to discourage such act. Or our judges trying to hide under the word “retrospective” to save the face of this govt? Or are they playing with the rules with different interpretation? if it is not applicable then why ACC investigated the case in the first place wasting our scarce resources? I hope sanity will prevail and truth comes out in the interest of laregr interest. There should be one and only one law in this country

  9. The High Court quashed the suspension order of ACC on the ground that the ACC Act passed in 2006 and amended in 2011 cannot be applied retroactively. The Civil and Criminal Procedure Code of Bhutan was enacted in 2001. I know a particular case where the High Court retroactively applied the Civil and Criminal Code for the incident that happened before 2000. I can substantiate this fact with solid documents. When an innocent person is declared guilty by manipulating laws and distorting facts, it constitutes mother of all corruption. If ACC files corruption charge against a judge, the judiciary will say they are governed by the Judicial Service Act of Bhutan, 2007. In 2013 we should vote for party that stand to amend the Judicial Service Act of Bhutan, 2007.

    • There’s no point of pursuing the case against the Speaker and Home Minister at Mongar Court as we the citizen have seen the implication made by the HC. It will be a huge loss of resources and time, after all the case will be in favor of those corrupted “MAFIAS”. The HC can bend their laws to suit them because they are not ‘ ordinary people’ as said by OG,that’s why even the HC has to interpret the very law by saying it was done before and the ACC law came after. What a mockery? You are fooling the common people by not being able to exactly say they are guilty free. Now everything will be before and after even by the Mongar Court. Don’t waste resources and time which can be utilized for the benefit of common people. It’s after all game of politics that has to go.

      • This case should be pursued all the way to the Supreme Court even if the ACC officials are harassed or humiliated. The ACC has the support of public opinion because they are doing what they are supposed to do. If the case is settled as per the law, we will credit the judiciary. Otherwise we have to see the tricks pulled by the judiciary to undermine ACC. Once we see all the tricks, it will motivate people to demonstrate in the streets. We were told that power was transferred to the people from the throne when democracy was introduced in 2008. It seems that power was by error or design transferred to the judiciary. Our judiciary is a government within a government accountable to no one but itself. We the people have to reclaim the power from judiciary if necessary by demonstrating in the streets. Today we are seeing corrupt elected officials on trial. One day we will like to see corrupt judges on trial. Unless we have a judiciary that respects the rule of law and due process, we cannot combat corruption. As we walk along the uncertain path our thoughts and prayers are for ACC officials.

      • Hi ENOUGH NOW
        Don’t worry, we are getting lots of knowledge “do n dons pro and cons of laws. This is only tip of iceberg. Let it go, as they wish and suits them and we will be watching very closely. This will be setting precedent for present and even in future, now we don’t know their internal intentions.If wrong precedent is set up they should be held accountable.
        By the way, this case should be or will be in the Bhutan history. Let our generation read it and let them decide how was their ancestors are.

  10. Seriously i m beginning to wonder whether we really need such demoCRAZY. where is our common sense and sense of justice. Alas! such is the state of affair. pity. 

  11. 72 civil servants suspended is not Members of Parliaments for God’s sake. In any democratic countries in the world, MPs are government by different Acts and enjoy certain immunity.
    On other hand OAG can’t defend Home Ministers and Speaker as it is individuals case. The court too says that…..

    I see both ACC and OAG are winners but i can’t say that two individuals……

    • Dear Defox,
      Pl be mindful of what you are saying. There is difference. MPs are elected, civil servant are not. MPs are temporary but CS are permnent. that is it? Pl remember, oth are public servant working for the same cause. Also we are all Bhutanese with same needs, feelings and emotions.
      Yes the parliamentarians enjoy certain immunity for what they say and does in the parliament but it does not cover when it concerns corruption. Pl read the constitution.
      No offense meant.

  12. Bhutan has a first democratically elected goverment with loads of corrupt guys and bunch of hypocrites. Judicial system has made laws in manner that it is left entirely upto the judges to play around . I am very pessimistic–country is going backwards

  13. Kasap or Qasap of Mumbai terrorist was Hanged just few weeks back. His petition was sent to President for forgiveness, but denied as the cost of his deeds was very huge. in the same, the ACC has spent a huge money in investigation. They are liable for some action for their corruption. for sure we are not interested in hanging, but some appropriate action must be given. we cannot let it go that way and forget. their name and fame has been already tarnished and public knows that these big people are already corrupted. we will always suspect and feel uncomfortable when we see them. there is one saying in Dzongkha, “on ur way, u see one snake on a tree, so when ever u pass that tree, u will always fear about the snake”. so is the same.

  14. Dear Wisdom,
    With due respect to your wisdom, please understand Constitution is just a broad frameworks under which specific laws have to enacted. What about National Assembly, Council and Speakers Act….

    I don’t care whether they are put into jail and let it rot. What I am talking about is legality… The question is what is legal and what is not. I understand public sentiments but court can’t do anything because it has to have some reference points….

    Ofcourse leaders can be corrupt without breaking laws…

    • Defox,
      i also respect your views whether you care or not is your problem. But I do feel and care for the society we live in….I want to remind you that constitution is mother of all laws in Bhutan.
      Cunning people may and can try to interpret in many ways to suit their need or convenience. That is the danger. Remember the tax controversy. All the while the govt. including the PM claimed in many public meetings that they were right? and what was the result? So here also we see lots of confusion and conflict of interest although we are not lawyer but our commonsense says otherwise.
      Anyway I respect your views and freedom to express.

    Out come and implication of Gyelposhing case:

    1. No one will be jailed or punished as verdict will be neutral.
    2. Non-Influential people will be lucky to escape as the case is along with influential people and Influential people are safe as Royal Families are involved.
    3. People will be fooled and confused of the case
    4. Pending cases like, Chang Ugyen, Trowa, Lottery etc. cannot be investigated, though investigated, it will be eye wash to general public.
    4. Bending, creating, adding, subtracting etc. of laws will be the culture of Judiciary of Bhutan.
    5. Interpretation of laws will be different for different level of people, though read from same book.
    6. Independent body will also be in hands of influential people
    7. Street protest in predicted if such continues, which we don’t like to have it.
    8. Influential will always favour influential and they fear influential, irrespective of private, corporation, Gov, autonomous etc.
    9. General public will be always looked down.
    10. Risk of transferring issues to small fish to save head of big fish

  16. i think we had had enough information. We have discussed enough in every forum available. Now lets find out together, what methods and rights do public have in order to go against these decision rather than just discussing and discussing and waiting and hoping for one people to bring the result. I think its time for us to join hand and take a practical action than just discussing in this forum.

  17. Or we have a enough mis-information, half-information and manipulated information media writes

  18. or i think media wrote it according to verdicts from high court websites and documents from ACC and OAG because media knows they are accountable for what they write especially in such cases as this one- LAND GRAB CASES

    • It’s crystal clear those ” NOT ORDINARY CIVIL SERVANT ” were corrupted. My country men, have you gone through today’s kuensel, What is the intention of OG. He wants them to make guilty free by fooling the common as I said earlier. Now we need to stop discussing in the forum instead take steps jointly to’ fight for the right ‘ which is not possible in Bhutan. What should be our action then? OAG only punishes “ORDINARY CIVIL SERVANTS” NOT THE INFLUENTIAL, that’s why it became history, OG defending the corrupted Speaker and Home Minister, another petition to HC again. They will win because Government post is filled by “MAFIAS” and enjoy upper hand.

      • enough nw and others,
        If you genuinely feel for the country and people, I think we should either join political party or support them to cleanse this malady from the beginning. We know ours is a new democracy and if we do not lay a good foundation, there is risk of going the wrong way and all of us will suffer. Think about it seriously and let us take action to prevent this.

  19. The Bhutanese courts for the second time showed the world how unreliable the Bhutanese justice system can get into when dealing with the cases related to influential people? First, when the government was sincerely fighting for a noble cause on tax reforms, the judiciary without an iota of regret and shame hardheartedly shot them down on impropriety ground, and now, when the ACC is trying to put the puzzle pieces together and set the right precedent into fighting corruption as new Bhutan’s way forward strategy, against the chagrin of the masses, the Bhutanese Judiciary in their ill-famed outfit, is here once again obstructing this noble path. This just shows how corrupt the Bhutanese judges are? They are least bothered about the larger interest of the general public. I do not know where we are headed as a Nation.

  20. Different laws for different level of people, laying foundation for uprising, street protest and blood for blood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *