KATHMANDU, NOVEMBER 13
In June 2021, Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions' sub-committee on accreditation decided to initiate a special review of the NHRC based on information received from a group of civil society organisations, alleging that the February 2021 appointment process of the NHRC members had failed to implement national guidelines enshrined in domestic law and the essential requirements of the Paris Principles, including the need for an open, transparent, and participatory process with broad consultations.
During its October 2021 session, the SCA decided to defer the special review of the NHRC by 12 months, to its October 2022 session.
GANHRI states that it remains concerned that the appointment process of NHRC members does not meet requirements of the Paris Principles and can adversely impact the actual and perceived institutional independence of the NHRC, as well as threaten its stability and credibility.
Members of the NHRC are appointed by a Constitutional Council established by the Constitutional Council Act. Under the original Constitutional Council Act, five out of six members of the Council must be present to make recommendations/nominations for appointments.
GANHRI states that by ordinance, the quorum of the Council was reduced to three, with a simple majority required to make recommendations for the appointment of office-holders. The ordinance has been challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The court has not delivered a final verdict on the legality of the ordinance, GANHRI added.
The sub-committee states that information provided by the rights body was found wanting and it does not demonstrate adequate efforts in addressing in a timely manner human rights issues, such as discrimination against women, caste, indigenous, LGBTQ, and minorities, nor has it spoken out in a manner that promotes and protects all human rights in line with the Paris Principles.
A version of this article appears in the print on November 14, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.
