While human resources and other issues may be posing challenges, political protection also makes verdict execution difficult

In democratic and civilised societies, courts are regarded very highly. And rightly so, for when people have nowhere to turn to, they reach out to the court. There is always hope that the courts would do justice. And courts indeed do. But courts delivering justice is not enough, justice needs to be felt. A judgment is just half the battle, its implementation completes the full circle, making one feel that there indeed is rule of law in true sense. But when it comes to implementation of court verdicts, Nepal has a pretty bad record. Non-execution or very slow execution of court verdicts has plagued our justice system for long. To address the snail-paced execution of court orders, the Supreme Court around 10 years ago had instituted the Judgment Execution Directorate (JED). The JED’s is tasked with executing court orders in association with the government and its agencies, mainly the law enforcement department.

But the JED has not been able to produce desired results. And it attributes the slow verdict execution to lack of economic and human resources as well as open border between Nepal and India, hinting that many of the convicts often cross the border making it difficult or impossible for the law enforcement agency to nab them. For the recent drop in judgment executions, the JED says it was because law enforcement agencies and court officials were busy with elections and other election-related tasks. Nepal held three tiers of elections last year. But when it comes to execution of court orders and the lackadaisical approach that is often taken by the concerned authorities, it is more than meets the eye. The problem runs deeper.

The challenges presented by the JED — for example human and economic resources — are not of the types that cannot be addressed. “Open border” is also something which in Nepal is often blamed for almost every other problem. The main problem arises when there is a nexus between criminals and politicians. The political patronage convicts tend to enjoy in Nepal is enormous. Former Maoist lawmaker Balkrishna Dhungel is a glaring example. Despite being convicted by the apex court for killing Ujjan Kumar Shrestha of Okhaldhunga, he continued to roam around freely, making mockery of the law. Police kept on “searching” for Dhungel, a court convict, but would invariably fail to “find” him even though he would be spotted in the Capital sharing the dais with high-profile politicians. While the JED-stated challenges cannot be ruled out, political protection the convicts often enjoy is also a major reason why court orders remain unimplemented. Failure to implement court orders sends a wrong message across the society, as it not only instills fear but also perpetuates impunity. There is a need of political will to address the prevailing problem. Swift implementation of court orders will ultimately strengthen rule of law. Justice will remain incomplete until it is fully implemented. That’s why there is this saying: Excutio est finis et fructus legis or “An execution is the end and the first fruit of the law”.

Dom people’s plight

The country may have gone through massive political changes over the years, but the situation of the poor, the marginalised and those who had been oppressed for ages is yet to change. A recent case in Siraha is a representative picture of how the marginalised communities never get to feel the presence of the state or its machinery. Dom families residing at Choharba of Naraha Rural Municipality, Siraha on Saturday were rendered homeless after a local man demolished their houses.

The Dom community is one of the most marginalised and excluded groups in Nepal. According to reports, the houses were razed when there were no male members at home. The person who demolished the houses, Bharat Raj Sharma, has claimed that the land where the Dom people were living belongs to him and that a court also has ruled in his favour. According to locals, the Dom community had been living there for 50 years or more. The state authorities must find fact and act accordingly. If there is any land dispute, then it should be sorted out in the presence of state officials. It’s unfair to render a community homeless.