Nepal should establish hybrid accountability mechanisms that combine traditional practices with international legal standards. This would make the justice process culturally relevant while ensuring procedural fairness
Transitional justice in Nepal has faced significant challenges, resulting in limited progress. The appointment of officials for crucial bodies like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappearances (CIEDP) has been delayed. Political divisions have hindered the process, with major political parties, such as the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist, unable to reach a consensus. This delay is indicative of the continued political interference that hampers the effectiveness of Nepal's justice process.
The peace process in Nepal, initiated by the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) in 2006 between the Seven-Party Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), marked a turning point in the nation's history. The CPA laid the foundation for major reforms, including the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015 and the integration of Maoist fighters into national forces. However, even after nearly two decades, the issue of transitional justice remains unresolved. Addressing this issue is vital for the completion of the peace process and ensuring justice for victims of the conflict.
The TRC and CIEDP, established in 2015, were tasked with investigating human rights violations and disappearances during Nepal's decade-long armed conflict. Despite receiving over 63,718 complaints and 2,400 cases of enforced disappearances, both bodies have focused mainly on collecting complaints rather than conducting thorough investigations. Political interference, lack of resources and operational weaknesses have hampered these bodies from fulfilling their mandates effectively.
International human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised concerns about Nepal's transitional justice process, criticising it for not meeting international standards. Nepal's legal framework allows for amnesty for certain human rights violations, but critics argue that this provision is vague, allowing perpetrators to avoid accountability. Moreover, a provision granting a 75 per cent sentence reduction for serious human rights violations, excluding sexual violence, has been criticised as a disguised form of amnesty, undermining justice. In 2015, Nepal's Supreme Court ruled that provisions in the TRC Act granting blanket amnesty for serious violations like torture and disappearances were unconstitutional.
The United Nations outlines five core pillars of transitional justice: truth, justice, reparations, memorialisation and guarantees of non-recurrence. Jeremy Webber's three-dimensional model of transitional justice includes retrospective justice (addressing past harms), prospective justice (reforms to prevent future abuses) and the adjustment of contending orders (reconciling legal and cultural systems).
South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995, is a notable example of restorative justice. Its focus on truth-telling and societal healing offers valuable lessons for Nepal. Rwanda's Gacaca Courts, operational from 2002 to 2012, used a community-based approach to address the 1994 genocide, offering a model for integrating traditional practices with modern legal principles.
Canada's reparations programme for Japanese Canadians, established in 1988, provides a model for addressing historical injustices through financial compensation, symbolic gestures and cultural preservation. This could inform Nepal's reparations programmes, especially for families of forcibly disappeared or displaced individuals.
Iraq's de-Ba'athification policy, which excluded many Sunni Arabs from government positions, exacerbated sectarian tensions and destabilised the country. Nepal must avoid exclusionary practices to ensure that its transitional justice process promotes inclusivity. The 2003 Richtersveld case in South Africa, in which ancestral lands were restored to the Khoi-San community, demonstrates the importance of addressing historical land injustices, an issue Nepal also faces with marginalised groups such as Dalits and indigenous communities.
To strengthen Nepal's transitional justice process, the TRC should adopt a multi-layered approach to truth recovery, including forensic investigations, narrative accounts, social dialogue and healing processes. Special attention must be given to marginalised communities like Dalits, women and indigenous groups. Public forums and community dialogues can help foster understanding and reconciliation.
Nepal should establish hybrid accountability mechanisms that combine traditional practices with international legal standards. This would make the justice process culturally relevant while ensuring procedural fairness. Adequate resources, training, and independence for the TRC and CIEDP are essential for their effectiveness.
Reparations programmes should address both symbolic and material harms, including land redistribution, educational scholarships, health care initiatives, and public apologies. Memorialisation efforts are also necessary to restore dignity to victims and acknowledge their suffering.
Institutional reforms are crucial to dismantling systems that perpetuated past abuses. Transparency, accountability and merit-based appointments within the judiciary, police and military are necessary to restore public confidence in governance. Independent oversight mechanisms should be created to ensure fairness and accountability in the transitional justice process.
Engaging traditional cultural practices in reconciliation efforts is vital. Local leaders and community rituals can help foster dialogue and trust. Public education campaigns can build legitimacy and trust in the transitional justice process. Robust monitoring and evaluation systems will ensure that progress is tracked, and adjustments are made as necessary.
Adhikari is an advocate
