Accountability without prejudgment: What the country’s audio controversies teach us

Resignations, party expulsions, corruption charges, convictions and acquittals reveal why political fallout should not be confused with proof of guilt

KATHMANDU: An audio recording is made public, a stir is created in political circles, debate flares up on social media, and questions begin to be raised about the morality of the person concerned. Someone resigns from their post, someone faces party action, and a corruption case is filed against someone. In some incidents, the court convicts while others are acquitted. In some cases, the authenticity of the audio and the identification of the voice remain to be confirmed.

In Nepal’s recent political practice, audio is no longer merely a medium for recording dialogue. It has become a powerful medium for testing political accountability, suspicion of corruption, public conduct, and personal reputation.

The audio controversy linked to Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker and central member Khagendra Sunar, made public by Janaastha on October 12, has brought this debate back to the center. It is claimed that the alleged public dialogue features a man conversing with a woman, containing objectionable words, threats, and monetary matters.

Following the release of the audio, the RSP has initiated an internal investigation. Sunar has been instructed not to participate in formal public programs in the capacity of a lawmaker and central member until the investigation concludes. This is an internal directive of the party, not a decision suspending his lawmaker position.

However, Sunar has claimed that the voice heard in the audio is not his. He has alleged that the audio was prepared using technologies including artificial intelligence (AI) and that an attempt was made to frame him. The woman claimed to have participated in the dialogue and has also stated in a television interview that no violence was committed against her.

RSP lawmaker Khagendra Sunar. File photo

This has complicated the incident. Whose voice is heard in the audio, what is the actual context of the dialogue, and how factual are the public allegations? These remain to be independently established. It is not enough to view this episode merely as the controversy of a single lawmaker. Questions are linked to this regarding what the speech and behavior of a person holding a public post should be, how to view allegations regarding women’s respect and security, how to test the reliability of audio evidence, and how to examine claims of political conspiracy.

Previously in Nepal as well, ministers have left office, lawmakers have lost their posts, officials of constitutional bodies have fallen into controversy, and corruption cases have reached court due to public audio and other recorded materials. However, the legal outcomes of all episodes are not the same. Understanding this difference is the main basis of the current debate.

Sunar under investigation

Directly elected from Banke Constituency No. 3, Sunar reached the House of Representatives through the election held after the Gen Z protest. Hailing from a background of journalism and activism, he is also a central member of the RSP. Following the recent release of the audio, the party has advanced an investigation through its disciplinary commission, calling the incident a serious and sensitive matter.

The disciplinary commission of the RSP had asked Sunar for a written reply. Denying the allegations, Sunar replied that the voice heard in the audio is not his. Following that, the commission decided to collect further evidence related to the incident.

The investigation committee has collected related materials from the media outlet Jana Aastha that made the audio public. It has written a letter to News 24 to provide the record of the television interview of the woman claimed to be participating in the dialogue. The committee has also yet to decide whether a technical examination of the audio is necessary or not.

According to disciplinary commission deputy chief and investigation committee coordinator Hari Chandra Bhattarai, Sunar has denied the allegations in writing. Bhattarai stated that after his denial, a situation has arisen to collect further evidence. According to him, the committee will test the available audio and, if deemed necessary, can take the assistance of relevant agencies for technical examination. The committee has yet to make a further decision on this.

This process has not yet reached a decisive stage. Sunar’s denial does not prove the audio is false, just as the fact that the audio was released does not automatically prove the allegations against him. The committee will have to evaluate the original copy of the audio, the possibility of editing, voice identification, the context of the dialogue, and other independent evidence together. Only then can it move toward a reliable conclusion of the incident.

Claiming that the charges against him are baseless, Khagendra Sunar released a Facebook video from an undisclosed location

Serious allegations have been made public regarding the dialogue claimed to have taken place between a woman and a man in the audio. However, no matter how sensitive the subject matter of the dialogue is, the process of confirming its truth is equally important. If issues of violence, threats, or financial pressure are linked to the allegations, evidence must be collected while ensuring the safety and privacy of the individuals concerned. The investigation will also have to look at the recent public statement of the woman claimed to be the victim along with its context.

Questions have also been raised about the role of the police. According to recent details, state agencies have taken an interest in the authenticity of the audio and the condition of the concerned parties. However, the party’s internal investigation and criminal investigations conducted by state agencies are different processes. Even in situations where a formal complaint has not been filed, the nature of the allegations and prevailing laws determine in what types of incidents the state can advance an investigation. Therefore, along with the demand for an investigation, a clear legal basis for it is also necessary.

Audio and the risk to reputation

With the expansion of digital technology, the capability to mimic voices, edit recordings, and prepare artificial dialogues has also increased. This has made extra caution necessary when using audio as evidence. Merely hearing a sound similar to a person’s voice is not final proof that the voice belongs to that person. The source of the recording, the original file, the condition of editing, the characteristics of the voice, and the context of the dialogue need to be tested.

Sunar has claimed that the audio was prepared using AI. This is the main basis of his defense. However, no independent technical report confirming that claim has been made public. Likewise, a technical conclusion conclusively establishing the claim that the audio is real is also not publicly available. Therefore, drawing a final conclusion about the authenticity of the audio at this stage would be premature.

In such a situation, both the reputation of the person holding a public post and the security of the accusing party can be put at risk. If the audio is real, accountability for the behavior shown in it is necessary. If the audio is artificial or misleading, character assassination and the dissemination of misinformation that could result from it are also serious matters. An impartial process of examining both possibilities based on evidence is the appropriate path.

In public debate, however, a tendency to pronounce judgments for and against before the testing of evidence is seen. Political supporters may declare the person on their side innocent, while opponents may present unverified materials as proof of guilt. But social media public opinion is not a court verdict. There can be a big gap between popular perception spread there and conclusions based on evidence.

For this very reason, the party releasing the audio must also be responsible regarding the source, context, and authenticity of the material. In journalism and public debate, it is necessary to present allegations as allegations, include the reaction of the concerned person, and clarify the state of evidence. When reporting serious allegations, sensational presentation alone is not sufficient. It must be able to make readers understand what has been confirmed and what remains to be confirmed.

Mahara’s position and the court verdict

The famous incident in Nepal’s political history where released audio records and allegations of sexual harassment affected the political future of a high-ranking person is linked to former Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara. In the year 2019, after Roshani Shahi, who worked at the parliament secretariat, accused Mahara of sexual harassment through a video interview, the incident came into national debate. After details related to it were made public, questions were raised about Mahara’s official dignity, and he resigned from the post of Speaker.

Former Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara. File photo