No two orders issued, says SC media focal

A recent Supreme Court (SC) judgment has left many in the legal field talking when it recalled a judgment copy issued to one of the four defendants citing clerical mistakes.

SC on March 10 passed a judgment convicting all four parties involved in the alleged corrupt financial transaction between the Royal Insurance Corporation of Bhutan Limited (RICBL) and Nubri Capital Private Limited (NCPL). The judgment copy, which the defendant received “sentenced” the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to 18 months each for failing to review the loss incurred by RICBL while investing Nu 100 million in the Nubri capital.

The SC, in the judgment allowed the two institutions to pay monetary compensation in lieu of the prison term. However, it was not clear who would serve the term or who was made accountable at the ACC and OAG. After two weeks, the SC recalled the judgment copy citing clerical mistakes.

Were there two judgments for a single case?

The SC media focal person said that there were no two orders from the SC. He said that all judgments were the same except for the copy issued to one of the defendants, one of the two RICB general managers.

“We have accidentally issued the draft copy that was not final to the defendant although it was signed,” he said in a WhatsApp message response to Kuensel queries. “We found out the mistake and called the same defendant and issued the same judgment that we issued to other parties.”

The focal person also suggested Kuensel to cross-check with the copy issued to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The official concerned from OAG confirmed that there was no mention of sentencing the two institutions in the judgment copy they received on March 10.

The SC’s media focal person, however, said that both ACC and OAG were ordered by the SC to assess the loss incurred by RICBL within two months from the date of judgment.

However, many who are aware of the case are skeptical of the media focal person’s claim.  They pointed out that both judges and bench clerks normally read out judgments before handing them over to the parties. “Moreover, the judgment is contained in just one file for all the parties unless the case is different,” said one. “Such mistakes could happen if judges depend on bench clerks to draft judgments unlike paralegal judges.”

As per Section 96.4 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2011, the judgment of the court shall be final once rendered. A senior lawyer said that they didn’t expect the highest appellate court to make mistakes in their rulings which are final and binding.

Both OAG and ACC appealed to the SC in August last year after the lower courts convicted the former executive director (ED) and two general managers of the RICBL accused of irrational investment in Nubri Capital. The High Court in July acquitted all the three defendants reasoning that the state prosecutor failed to prove the accusation “beyond reasonable doubts.”

The SC overturned the lower courts’ ruling and sentenced the former ED to six years in prison for failure to declare a conflict of interest and abuse of function. Two general managers were sentenced to three months each for breach of conduct. However, all defendants were allowed to pay thrimthue in lieu of imprisonment.

An official from ACC said that they are yet to calculate the loss as directed by the SC.