Document Shows DIG Silwal Refused To Answer Police Committee’s Questions
Embattled Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Nepal Police, Nawaraj Silwal, has repeatedly declined to answer questions about his alleged involvement in the falsification of the performance appraisal certificates he submitted to the Supreme Court. In his statement to the probe committee obtained by Onward Nepal, dated April 24, Silwal expresses his inability to answer to 16 out of the 18 questions regarding the falsified documents he submitted when he filed a writ petition two months ago to claim the post of Chief of Police. The only two questions he answered, the document shows, are the first two questions that pertain to his biographical information. He gave his statement to the probe committee in the presence of his legal representative, Shambhu Thapa.
At the very beginning of the Nepal Police Inquiry Committee’s questioning, DIG Silwal said he would not be able to record his statement regarding the forgery case as he was mentally disturbed by legal complications over his promotion to the Chief of Police. He added he was suffering from severe back pain for which his doctor had advised rest. For most parts of the Committee’s questioning, DIG Silwal kept reverting to “previously given reason” as to why he is not able to answer questions.
When asked about the source of the performance appraisal certificates, Silwal, who was previously Chief of the Crime Investigation Bureau, evaded the question and instead replied that recording his statement to anyone other than the court would be held in contempt of court as his case remains sub judice.
DIG Aryal has also refused to identify the documents he presented to court citing his weak mental and physical health. He said he would be able to talk only to his lawyer, and not to officials representing the defendant.
On April 28, we published our story The Forgery Case of Deputy Inspector General Silwal along with copies of the Nepal Police Crime Investigation Department’s forensic report.
The Legal Battle:
March 21: Responding to the writ petition filed by DIG Silwal, the Supreme Court had revoked the promotion of DIG Jaya Bahadur Chand to the post of Inspector General of Police (IGP). The court ordered the government to stick to the rules, and take into account merit and seniority, as mentioned in Nepal Police Regulations, while promoting police officers.
April 10: The government promoted DIG Prakash Aryal to the post of IGP after reviewing his work performance. The government had to pick from among four DIGs: Silwal, Chand, Aryal, and Bhandari. As per the appraisal performance score presented by the government, Aryal had scored 154.2 points, Silwal 152.4, Bhandari 150.2, and Chand 147.6 in the four-year evaluation.
April 11: DIG Silwal filed a petition in court seeking annulment of the government’s decision to promote DIG Aryal to the post, arguing that there were irregularities in the evaluation of work performance. He presented the court a different document claiming the review panel had deducted two points from his scoresheet to promote Aryal to the post of IGP.
A forensic report from the Nepal Police Crime Investigation Department shows that DIG Silwal superimposed his contender’s score onto his appraisal certificate. This forgery case, if proven, could land him in jail for up to 10 years.
According to the Nepal Police Regulations 2071, copies of the performance appraisal certificates are being kept sealed as confidential documents at the Nepal Police Headquarter, the Home Ministry, and at the Public Service Commission. To the question of possible involvement of other individuals in obtaining the appraisal certificates, DIG Silwal expressed ignorance. “Only the officials who sealed the documents can answer that.”
Silwal’s statement, the forensic report, and other documents will be presented to court during the hearing.
The hearing of Silwal’s case has been postponed twice already: To May 2 and then to May 18. A new date for the hearing has not been announced.
Below is the copy of the Nepal Police Inquiry Committee’s Question and Answer with DIG Silwal referred to in this article: