Former Law Minister Bandi discusses transitional justice and accountability for human rights violations

In this interview, the former Law Minister of Nepal, Govinda Koirala, discusses the issue of transitional justice in Nepal and the government's efforts to address it. He explains the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the challenges it has faced due to a lack of amendments to the Truth Disclosure Act. He also addresses recent cases involving Maoist leaders and their confusion about the possibility of arrest, as well as allegations that the Maoist party is working for dollars. Koirala emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach that involves all stakeholders and victims, as well as the importance of holding people accountable for their actions, even in situations where there may have been confusion. Finally, he stresses that the state has a responsibility to bring justice to the victims and that the court has repeatedly called for a resolution to the issue of transitional justice.

Q: How do you view the recent case filed against Prime Minister Prachanda regarding the civil war?

A: I think it is a normal matter. The state has a responsibility to address human rights violations that occurred during armed conflicts in the past, which couldn't be fulfilled by the state. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act couldn't be amended, and the process of reforming the Commission couldn't proceed. Criminal justice also couldn't make it work.

Q: Why do you think Maoist leaders are confused about the possibility of Prachanda's immediate arrest?

A: I cannot say anything about them. All I can say is that we should all believe in the democratic institution.

Q: What do you think about the Maoist leaders' claim that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over this matter?

A: The court will explain in the days to come. The administration has already said that it will not be possible. That will be said by the bench. The bench can also say that it is. It is a matter of the court. No one should act to influence the court. It is the responsibility of each of us to keep the freedom of the law intact.

Q: Can you explain the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in achieving transitional justice?

A: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established under the comprehensive peace agreement to settle the matter of the People's war. The Commission was supposed to look into the issues during the conflict, but it couldn't proceed due to the inability to amend the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act and the failure of criminal justice to work

Q: Can you comment on the recent case involving former Maoist leader, Ram Bahadur Thapa, also known as Comrade Badal?

A: The case has gone to court, and it's not appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing legal matter.

Q: Is there a possibility that Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, will be caught or imprisoned?

A: As of now, there hasn't been any complaint filed in any district police office. It's up to the court to decide based on the evidence presented.

Q: In your opinion, who is responsible for the lack of progress in the transitional justice system?

A: The state is primarily responsible, which includes all of us. There have been efforts in the past, but they haven't been fruitful for various reasons.

Q: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission hasn't been able to make progress due to a lack of amendments to the Truth Disclosure Act. Is it reasonable for victims to seek justice through the court system?

A: When the process doesn't proceed, people seek justice, so it's not unreasonable for victims to seek justice through the court system. However, transitional justice should only go to court after an investigation by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its recommendation.

Q: Can you comment on the recent allegations that the Maoist party is working for dollars?

A: I don't agree with such allegations. We should focus on solving the problem in our own way rather than interpreting people's actions negatively.

Q: Why did the Maoist-led governments not pay attention to the issue of transitional justice?

A: The peace agreement included the provision of Truth Reconciliation, but there was a lack of understanding of its power, function, and mandate. The issue was not addressed comprehensively with all stakeholders, leading to a lack of uniformity in understanding. As a result, the issue was delayed due to disagreements on how to proceed.

Q: As Law Minister, what did you do to address the issue of transitional justice?

A: After extensive consultations with victims, the army, the police, and political parties, the government started to work towards including everyone's issues. Transitional justice is an agreement that cannot be reached by putting demands. It requires a comprehensive approach that involves everyone, so all victims can move forward together.

Q: Did you face criticism for your approach to transitional justice?

A: Yes, there was criticism from some, including the UML president who accused me of becoming over-smart and wanting to finalize it immediately. However, the current government has made efforts to finalize transitional justice, and it is not helpful to accuse anyone.

Q: What is your opinion on how to handle the most serious cases?

A: Only the most serious cases should be taken to trial. I cite the example of Cambodia, where more than two million people were killed, but only 32 cases were put on trial. It is not normal to talk indirectly or hold positions that prevent progress. People must speak the truth, and justice must be done.

Q: Was there justice in the cases of Maina Sunar and Dekendra Thapa?

A: Transitional justice means holding people accountable for their actions, even in situations where there may have been some confusion. The evidence in Maina Sunar's case was clear, and the army gave a statement about how they killed her. However, the court did not impose a sentence of more than five years. In Dekendra Thapa's case, Lakshmiram provided details of what happened. The court treated these cases as incidents that happened in a situation rather than deliberate acts of killing or stealing.

Q: Are there powers that take advantage of the confusion surrounding transitional justice?

A: No one benefits from the confusion, and all international bodies are ready to help. The issue has been delayed because some are not ready due to taking positions, and others have left many positions. It is the responsibility of the state to bring justice to the victims, and the court has repeatedly called for a resolution.

Q: Has the court increased the pressure regarding the issue of transitional justice?

A: Yes, the court has said many times that the issue of transitional justice should be resolved quickly. It is the responsibility of the state to bring justice to the victims through Truth Reconciliation, and if that does not work, the court has continuously spoken that there should be a hearing.

Q: How will the problem of transitional justice be solved?

A: A bill regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will go to Parliament soon. The government is responsible for resolving this issue, and all parties must agree to move forward.

Q: Does it matter which party the Speaker is from?

A: We should not doubt people based on their political affiliation. All Parliamentarians play their roles fairly, and we should think positively.

Q: You are an advisor of the Prime Minister. Will your role be significant in resolving the issue of transitional justice?

A: It is natural for me to give suggestions when asked, but this is ultimately the responsibility of the government. I am confident that if all parties agree and stick to the framework created, we can finalize transitional justice.

Q: Can you clarify the scandal surrounding the visit to Geneva?

A: I was invited as an expert on transitional justice to join the Minister of Foreign Affairs' team. Later, I was informed that the Minister was not going. Since there was no Foreign Minister from Nepal, I led according to the decision made by the government of Nepal. It is common for an advisor to speak at the United Nations, and whoever goes will read the text already prepared by the government.

Q: Is there a fundamental difference between the Foreign Minister going to Geneva and not going?

A: It doesn't matter as long as the state has its own policy and agreement document. The Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs, and the Embassy work together to make the document, and the representative's role is to read and follow it.

Q: Would it have been better if the Foreign Minister went?

A: I believe that it may have been better, but the Foreign Minister has already given reasons for not attending. I do not want to get involved in political controversy but suggests that the Foreign Minister may not have felt comfortable attending as his party was about to leave the government.

Q: Did you replace the Foreign Minister?

A: No, I did not replace the Foreign Minister.

Q: What was accomplished in Nepal's representation at Geneva?

A: We represented the country and discussed several issues with the head of the UN, the head of the EU, and ministers from different countries. I discussed Nepal's problems and how they are advancing transitional justice.

Q: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs humiliated when he was sent back from the airport at the last moment?

A: I believe that the Prime Minister may not have felt comfortable with the Minister of Foreign Affairs attending, as his party was leaving the government the following day. The Prime Minister has the authority to make decisions based on his comfort level, and I don't think it should be made a big deal.