Kailash Sirohiya’s Statement on Citizenship Issues

Kailash Sirohiya, Chairman of Kantipur Media Group, who is currently in the custody of Dhanusha Police for investigation of citizenship-related offenses, has issued a clarification through his legal practitioner. This follows his statement in court addressing claims made in the police report and information from the public prosecutor’s office.

Sirohiya was arrested from the Kantipur office in Thapathali last Tuesday and taken to Dhanusha. He denies any personal acquaintance with Indrajit Prasad Mahato, who filed the complaint against him, suggesting the complaint was motivated by revenge and anger.

Citizenship and Copies

Sirohiya stated that he was born in Dhanusha on Mangsir 29, 2019 BS, and obtained citizenship number 39698886 based on descent from the district administration office on Bharda 25, 2036 BS. He clarified that he has had this citizenship for nearly 44 years. In 2057 BS, he took a certified copy of his citizenship. Sirohiya emphasized that he possesses only one citizenship and dismissed rumors of holding multiple citizenships as unfounded and not part of the police accusation.

Non-Existence of Records in Government Archives

Sirohiya pointed out that his citizenship number is recorded on various official documents, including his national identity card, passport, driver’s license, and voter ID card. He mentioned receiving a national identity card on Falgun 15, 2079 BS, after verification by the Dhanusha district administration office. He questioned the current claim of missing records, attributing it to possible negligence or corruption within the government. He insisted that any discrepancy in the records is the responsibility of the relevant state agency.

Same Citizenship Number for Two People

Sirohiya denied responsibility for the issue of his citizenship number matching another person’s number. He asserted that the state holds full responsibility for maintaining accurate records and should address any discrepancies. He questioned the necessity of his arrest without thorough verification of the other individual’s claims, suggesting it was an abuse of state power.

Citizenship of Family Members

Sirohiya explained that he was born after his father obtained citizenship and is therefore a citizen by descent. He stated that the law determines the type of citizenship for children born before and after their parents acquire citizenship, and he should not be held accountable for legal stipulations from the past.

Age and Citizenship Granting

Sirohiya mentioned that his citizenship was granted based on records collected in 033/34 BS and that his age was verified by authorized officials at the time. He emphasized that citizens cannot receive certificates without providing proof, and it is unjust to arrest someone based on discrepancies in state-issued documents.

Typographical Errors in Citizenship Documents

Sirohiya acknowledged typographical errors in his citizenship document but clarified that these were rectified by the District Administration Office employee when he obtained a copy in 2057 BS. He insisted that the original and copy of his citizenship certificate are consistent and should not have led to his arrest.

Arrest and State Power Abuse

Sirohiya expressed willingness to cooperate with any state investigation and criticized his arrest as an extreme misuse of state power. He argued that his arrest was unnecessary and caused irreparable harm to the country.

Dispute Over Citizenship and Retaliation

Sirohiya contended that his arrest was not due to citizenship issues but retaliation for critical news coverage of Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane. He alleged that Lamichhane, who holds dual citizenship and two passports, misused his authority to target him.

Investigation of Lamichhane’s Dual Passport

Sirohiya questioned the legitimacy of Lamichhane, who possesses dual citizenship and passports, holding the position of Home Minister. He called on the media and civil society to continue holding the government accountable.

Sirohiya’s statement underscores his assertion of legal compliance and victimization due to political motives, calling for transparency and adherence to the rule of law.