Human Rights Commission Report Questions Gauri Bahadur Karki's Role in Janji Movement

Kathmandu. The relationship and contradiction between the National Human Rights Commission's report on the 'Janji Movement' of Bhadra 23 and 24 and the Gauri Bahadur Karki Investigation Commission have become quite complex. The conclusions and analysis of these two commissions have brought the issue of Nepal's constitutional bodies, political leadership, and judicial process to the surface. 

Two bodies involved in the investigation of the Janji movement incident; The National Human Rights Commission, after analyzing the events of both Bhadra 23 and 24, has recommended action against those involved in human rights violations, while the investigation commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki (formed by the government) has recommended action only against the perpetrators of the Bhadra 23 incident and pointed out that a separate investigation should be conducted regarding the Bhadra 24 incident.

The Human Rights Commission's report has raised questions about Gauri Bahadur Karki's dual role. The most interesting aspect of this report is that the National Human Rights Commission has included Gauri Bahadur Karki himself in the list of 'activists/leaders' who incited and provoked the protestors (point no. 30) and recommended an investigation into him. After recommending action by placing Karki in the role of inciting and provoking the movement, the credibility of the report recommended by Karki has been questioned. 

The Karki Commission had only investigated based on the incident of Bhadra 23. However, the Human Rights Commission has analyzed the events of both Bhadra 23 and 24 and recommended bringing all those involved in the incident to justice. The Karki Commission had recommended action against the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, who have also been shown to be guilty of human rights violations by the Human Rights Commission. The commission appears to have recommended investigation and action against the then Prime Minister, as well as activists involved in the arson of Bhadra 24, and all those who incited the mob. The Human Rights Commission argues that the policy decision to ban social media was the main seed of violence. 

Generally, investigation commissions only point out the 'field' mistakes of employees and security personnel. However, by recommending punishment for the country's highest executive head, even by creating 'retroactive laws', the Human Rights Commission appears to be trying to establish a new standard in the history of human rights protection in Nepal. 

The commission's report has not only linked the incident of Rabi Lamichhane and jailer Satyaraj Joshi to the release of a single individual but has also linked it to 'security vacuum'. The commission considers the death of 10 people and the escape of more than 13,000 prisoners as a direct consequence of Rabi Lamichhane's release. Two different versions have been made public regarding the incident of Lamichhane's release from Nakhhu prison. Satyaraj Joshi, the administrator of Nakhhu prison, claimed that he wrote the letter saying he would release him due to pressure from Rabi's aides and supporters and fear of that pressure.

However, Rabi Lamichhane stated that the jailer had called him because he could not maintain the security of the prison and had said, 'If you go out, the jail will be secure,' after giving him a letter. The Human Rights Commission, stating that the two statements of Lamichhane and Joshi contradict each other, has described the subsequent situation as dire. The commission has linked Lamichhane to criminal offenses. While the Karki Commission remained silent on the leaders and cadres of Rastriya Swatantra Party, the Human Rights Commission has recommended action against 17 people including RSP chairman Rabi Lamichhane. 

The investigation commission has called this a 'situational compulsion', while the Human Rights Commission has called it a 'criminal offense in violation of the Prison Act 2079'. If the commission's recommendations are implemented, it could become the biggest legal crisis for Rabi Lamichhane's political career. 

The Human Rights Commission has recommended investigation and departmental action against the incumbent IGP and former IGPs. Recommendations have been made to bring RSP MPs Manish Jha and Hari Dhakal, Nakhhu prison administrator Satyaraj Joshi, and others under investigation. 

Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki and Armed Police Force IGP Narayan Dutt Poudel, DIG Om Bikram Rana, SSP Bishwa Adhikari, Armed SP Jeevan KC, National Investigation Department Director Krishna Khanal, Kathmandu Chief District Officer Chhabilal Rizal have been recommended for departmental action for suppressing the Janji movement. 

The commission is firm in its conclusion that the security forces used lethal weapons indiscriminately. Interestingly, the commission has also called the silence of the Nepali Army a 'weakness'. The commission's comment that the army did not make even a 'minimal effort' to prevent the burning of Shital Niwas and Singha Durbar has exposed the lack of coordination among the state's security agencies. 

The Human Rights Commission and the Karki Commission's reports show similarity regarding the security bodies. The Karki Commission had also recommended action against the heads of the security bodies. The commission had recommended departmental action against the then Chief of Nepal Police, Chief of Armed Police, and Chief of the National Investigation Department for failing to control the movement. Similarly, the Karki Commission had recommended action against field commanders. Human rights violations by field commanders including AIG, DIG, SSP, and SP of Nepal Police and Armed Police deployed in areas like New Baneshwor and Singha Durbar have been recommended for departmental action. 

The Human Rights Commission, while taking statements from Balen Shah, appears to be silent about his role. The Human Rights Commission, which recommended action against Balen for inciting the movement through social media, appears to be silent regarding Balen. Earlier, the report of the Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission also did not say anything regarding Balen. 

The Human Rights Commission has concluded that the incident of Bhadra 24 was 'criminal'. Pointing out that political leaders, cadres, and their families were also physically attacked, it concluded that this violated the citizens' right to live with dignity. Stating that highly sensitive buildings such as Singha Durbar, Supreme Court, and President's residence, along with other government structures, were burned, the commission concluded that the security vacuum had violated many rights of the Nepali people. However, the investigation commission chaired by Gauri Bahadur Karki had concluded that the incident of Bhadra 24 required a separate investigation.  

The Human Rights Commission has also recommended provisions that should be included in future laws regarding the international application and concept of human rights and Nepal's needs. It has recommended seven subject matters to be included in the laws to be enacted henceforth.

According to the commission's recommendations, the first condition is that future laws should provide for imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of up to three hundred thousand rupees or both penalties for human rights violators. A temporary arrangement for a special court (not the current special court) with the authority to hear such matters should also be arranged.

The commission has recommended criteria that human rights violators should be prohibited from running for any elected or politically appointed position for up to five years. Human rights violators should be banned from administrative responsibilities for at least three years, and a provision should be included in the law to ban them from traveling abroad for three years. 

The commission has stated that for offenses other than serious ones, victims or, with the court's permission, human rights violators can apologize publicly, provide compensation, and be granted clemency in punishment, and this sixth provision should be included. Regarding the provisions to be included in future laws, the commission has stated in its condition, 'A provision must be made that anyone holding any public office shall be automatically suspended upon being charged with a case.' The commission, stating that it will take time for the law to be enacted, has directed the government to 'at least suspend for six months all individuals designated as human rights violators, regardless of their public office, to respect and protect human rights' until then. 

Karki Commission's Recommendation for Action Against Army Officials, Human Rights Commission's Silence

The investigation commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki had concluded that the role of the Nepali Army during the movement and vandalism in sensitive areas like Singha Durbar and Shital Niwas was 'almost inactive' and suspicious. The investigation commission had recommended action against four officials of the Nepali Army, determining that there was serious negligence in the security of the country's most sensitive structures during the Janji movement of Bhadra 23 and 24. 

The commission had recommended action against four military officials for failing to secure highly sensitive structures. Those recommended for departmental action under Section 105 of the Army Act, 2063, included Assistant Brigadier Manoj Baidwar (Shital Niwas), Lieutenant Colonel Divakar Khadka (Baluwatar), Lieutenant Colonel Ganesh Khadka (Singha Durbar), and Captain Santosh Dhungel (Parliament Building). 

While recommending action against the then Inspector Generals of Police and Armed Police, the Human Rights Commission's report appears to be silent on taking action against the army. The report identified weaknesses in preventing damage to life and property in Singha Durbar, Supreme Court, and Shital Niwas. It is mentioned that the army, which was deployed to provide security, did not protect Singha Durbar and Shital Niwas. 

The report mentions that Chief of Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel did not cooperate with the commission. Although many weaknesses were identified, no action was recommended. The report points out that while the army did not need a decision to be mobilized when the main structures were burning, the mobilization of the army on the night of Bhadra 24 without a government decision carries a message. 

The report states, 'Even though 76 people have lost their lives and all the main structures of the state and the country's largest and main business establishments have been destroyed by arson, the army was mobilized only from 10 PM on the night of Bhadra 24, in a situation where there was no sign of the state or government from anywhere.' 

The report mentions that there was no statement that the army was mobilized based on the government's decision at that time, even though it was mobilized from 10 PM. It is mentioned in the report that the army deployed for the security of Singha Durbar and the President's Office, and even though it was in the same barracks, it did not make even a minimal effort to protect them.