The Nepalese Attorney General, Professor Pawan Kumar Ohja, has defended the legality of the recent media ordinance, claiming that it is not unconstitutional - despite having been issued by the executive in the absence of parliament.
"As ordinances also hold legislative power, it can amend not only the ordinance itself, but also the existing laws and regulations made by the parliament," Ohja said.
Government lawyers said that the ordinance adhered to the 1990 constitution, and was intended "to regulate the press, not control it."
The ordinance, issued on October 9, prohibits FM stations from broadcasting news and also from criticising the king and the royal family. It includes provisions for jailing reporters for up to two years in defamation cases.
"Nepal's media laws are repressive and prohibit free speech. The new ordinance restricts the ability of Nepalese journalists to report critically on the government and the king. The IFJ encourages the international community to pressure the Supreme Court to revoke the ordinance," said IFJ president Christopher Warren.
A Public Interest Litigation case was filed in the Supreme Court against the media ordinance on October 21. The Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) and several media rights groups filed petitions separately on October 23.
Another complaint was registered by the management of Kantipur FM. Armed police ransacked the radio station and seized broadcasting equipment on October 21, just hours after a protest rally organised by the FNJ.
The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision in the week beginning Monday November 14, 2005.
