The party maintains it won’t execute bah

Court: Druk Phuensum Tshogpa’s (DPT) representative said the defendant Dasho Paljor J Dorji failed to substantiate any of the allegations against the party during his rebuttal to its libel suit, yesterday.

“He is simply repeating the charges levelled against DPT by one party in its electoral campaign and certain section of media,” the party’s representative, MP Ugyen Wangdi, said.

He also submitted that some allegations were not at all relevant to the case.

He said all of the highly political and malicious allegations were totally baseless while many were completely irrelevant to the case.

He said the plaintiff has conscientiously been cautious in their submissions regarding the ‘most hurtful and grievous accusation’ of usurping the Royal prerogative of land kidu and the “preposterous”  charge of sedition.

“We cannot but feel that the act of publicly raising such a dangerously divisive issue, is in itself, seditious,” he said.

MP Ugyen Wangdi said the defendant has cast aspersions on the judiciary by airing his suspicion that the court would be “deciding more on the basis of individual judge’s prejudices than the law of defamation” when and if it happens.

“This is direct insult to the honourable court and the judicial system, we ask the court to take appropriate action,” Ugyen Wangdi said.

DPT says it has not reproduced any of its submissions related to accusations of usurping Royal prerogative of land kidu and sedition calling them irrelevant to the case and citing ‘unthinkable negative consequences’.  He asked the court to dismiss these submissions.

MP Ugyen Wangdi also submitted that the court ask the Royal Civil Service Commission, and National Environment Commission, for which the defendant is an advisor, to take suitable administrative actions against Dasho Paljor J Dorji for violating the public service code of conduct.

The party would not execute the 75M bah (legal undertaking) but is still prepared to withdraw the case if the defendant submits an apology that his comment was not meant to accuse the party of committing acts of robbery.

Meanwhile, the defendant’s lawyer, Younten Dorji, said his client does not want to apologise.

“If a person of his stature could be silenced for using his constitutional right of freedom of speech, then what would become of the common people,” he said.

He said that DPT’s refusal to execute bah indicates the party is guilty of the allegations.

The next hearing is on February 12.

By Tshering Palden