Why Nepal cannot easily ignore NHRC’s Gen Z crackdown recommendations

Nepal's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has triggered significant debate by recommending legal actions against high-ranking officials, including the prime minister and home minister, for alleged human rights violations during the September 8-9 Gen Z protest crackdown. Invoking its constitutional authority, the commission has called for prosecution under Article 249 (2c) of the constitution for those involved in quelling the protests last year.

The NHRC's report names 52 individuals, including 17 lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), for investigation. It also recommended probes into two groups, including one identified as ‘TOB,’ which allegedly incited violence. The commission concluded that then-prime minister KP Sharma Oli, home minister Ramesh Lekhak, and communications minister Prithvi Subba Gurung were involved in human rights violations. This follows a separate judicial probe that had recommended criminal investigations against Oli and Lekhak on homicide charges, leading to their arrests.

“

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also recognises such reports.

While investigations based on the Karki Commission's report are ongoing, the NHRC has independently recommended establishing a special court through new legislation to adjudicate cases related to the protests. Some named individuals have contested the recommendations, while others have dismissed them as routine political developments. The debate continues publicly and on social media regarding the likelihood of the recommendations being implemented.

Former NHRC member Sudeep Pathak emphasized the report's legal and constitutional weight, noting that "The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also recognises such reports." He stressed that the government is constitutionally obliged to implement the NHRC's recommendations. The report will be submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office and then to the Office of the Attorney General for review. Pathak argued that the report, stemming from an investigation into serious human rights violations, cannot be ignored, and the government must engage in discussions with the commission if dissatisfied.

“

Since the commission is a constitutional body in Nepal, the government is obliged to implement its recommendations.