Nepal panel demands rights groups explain judiciary criticism
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- A parliamentary committee in Nepal has asked the government to seek explanations from Amnesty International, ICJ, and Human Rights Watch regarding a statement critical of the country's judiciary.
- The human rights groups had expressed concern over alleged political interference and pressure on Supreme Court justices.
- Rights advocates have criticized the committee's move, questioning its jurisdiction and suggesting its focus should be on scrutinizing government actions.
A parliamentary committee in Nepal has directed the government to demand explanations from three international human rights organizations over a joint statement that criticized recent developments in the nation's judiciary. The directive, issued Wednesday by the House of Representatives' Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee, asks Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and Human Rights Watch to provide evidence for their claims.
The three organizations had previously voiced concerns about alleged political interference in Nepal's judiciary. They specifically pointed to claims of pressure on three Supreme Court justices to resign under threat of impeachment. The groups also criticized a government ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act and questioned the recommendation of Manoj Kumar Sharma as chief justice, noting it deviated from the convention of appointing the senior-most serving justice.
The role of parliamentary committees is to scrutinise government actions and address public concerns, not to deliberate on press statements issued by national or international organisations.
The committee's decision to investigate the human rights groups' statement has drawn sharp criticism from rights defenders. They argue that parliamentary committees should prioritize scrutinizing government actions and addressing public concerns rather than deliberating on statements from international organizations. Advocates questioned whether such scrutiny would be applied equally to other international bodies and what consequences, if any, would follow if the organizations refused to respond.
Senior advocate Bipin Adhikari, who testified before the committee, stated that international human rights organizations have the right to comment on human rights issues. He emphasized that their statements should not be automatically perceived as foreign interference, noting Nepal's history of positive international engagement.
Nepal has long enjoyed a positive internation
Originally published by Kathmandu Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.