Former PM Oli Claims Attacks on Government Bodies During Protests Were Premeditated

Kathmandu. Former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli stated that the arson and attacks on all three organs of the government were premeditated incidents. In his testimony to the inquiry commission formed to investigate the Gen Z movement, former PM Oli claimed that a group seeking to fulfill its own interests instigated the youth to carry out the events.

Oli's statement is also included in the commission's report, sourced from Janastha Weekly. In that statement, Oli said, "A group aiming to fulfill its objectives by putting the youth forward in the movement deliberately incited the youth, creating a situation that led to loss of life and injury."

Oli's Statement is as follows:

1. Statement of Former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli (Content):

Following the incident at Tinkune, Kathmandu, in Chaitra of 2082 BS, I had instructed all security agencies to minimize loss of life and property and prevent infiltration by undesirable elements in the context of such incidents. Since the Home Minister chairs the Central Security Committee, and the Home Minister possesses security sensitivities and related information, I directed the then Home Minister to appear before the commission for answers. Many issues would have been clarified by the Home Minister's response. In reality, an unimaginable and barbaric incident, unprecedented in the country's history, occurred on Bhadra 23 and 24.

In the context of the immediate events during the Gen Z-led agitation on Bhadra 23, it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to be directly informed about. The Prime Minister does not order the police; the Ministry of Home Affairs remains the line ministry for this. Logically, the Prime Minister is not accountable for this matter. The unruly activities, such as attacking security personnel and taking selfies wearing the uniforms and taking the guns of security personnel, were certainly not carried out by the protesting Gen Z, but by infiltrating groups taking advantage of the movement. The Gen Z themselves have stated that their demands were 'hijacked' and that their intention was a peaceful protest.

There was an attempt to burn the Parliament building on the 23rd. On that day, a group aiming to fulfill its objectives by putting the youth forward in the movement deliberately incited the youth, creating a situation that led to loss of life and injury. The arson and attack on all three organs of the government were premeditated incidents. The Parliament building, which represents the sovereign people, the administrative center Singha Durbar, and the Supreme Court, the center of justice, were specifically targeted, data was sought out, and they were set on fire. Have the videos of those involved been made public, and have their statements been taken by the commission?

As the Chairman of the National Security Council, I could have convened a meeting and issued directives, but the government's stance was to use minimal force and avoid human casualties. The intention of the government was not to mobilize the army, so it was not done.

The suggestion from the Nepali Army was also in line with this. Following discussions with the heads of security agencies on the night of the 22nd, it was reported that about 6-7 thousand Gen Z individuals would arrive peacefully. Directives were issued from the Prime Minister's perspective to prevent casualties. All my property was burned, and even the private property of others, which I had sold 23 years ago, was burned because I allowed people to stay there. My house in Tehrathum district was the only one set on fire. Were the people responsible for all this investigated and their statements taken by the commission?

Burning industries—is that not burning the country's economy? It was an attack on the social structure, an attack on the economic structure, and an act to destroy our culture and devastate the country. Can investment be promoted this way? The Prime Minister does not have the authority to order the police to shoot during the incident on Bhadra 23. This is not something to be said.

Technical questions like these have likely been answered by the concerned individuals. After the incident on Bhadra 23, a cabinet meeting was held in the evening, where a decision was made to form a judicial commission for an impartial investigation, provide effective treatment to the injured, offer relief to the families of the deceased, and lift the ban imposed on social media as per the demands of the Gen Z generation. I resigned on Bhadra 24. If the movement was because I was an obstacle, everything should have been fine after my resignation, but it wasn't, was it?

The government made a decision regarding the regulation of social media; social media regulation should have happened, shouldn't it? Shouldn't there be accountability? Yes, that is why the decision was made. State officials who were in charge at the time have already given their statements to the commission regarding the incident, and I have repeatedly expressed my views on this matter publicly.