By Our Reporter
Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) President Rabi Lamichhane has spent the past few years battling one legal and political crisis after another. Just as his party prepares for its first national convention, a fresh challenge has emerged from an unexpected direction: the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Unlike political accusations exchanged between rivals, the NHRC report carries the weight of a constitutional body. That alone makes it difficult to dismiss.
The commission has not directly recommended prosecution against Lamichhane in the same way it has against some senior state officials involved in the Gen Z crackdown. Yet it has done something politically significant. It has recommended a detailed investigation into his role in leaving Nakhu Prison during the September unrest and into the actions of those who helped facilitate his release.
That distinction matters. Lamichhane’s supporters argue that the report does not declare him guilty of any crime. They are correct. The commission has only called for further investigation. But being placed under investigation by Nepal’s highest human rights watchdog is itself a serious development, especially for a politician who has built his image around challenging the political establishment.
At the center of the controversy is a simple question: how did a prisoner walk out of a prison during a period of chaos and immediately address supporters outside?
The NHRC believes that question deserves closer scrutiny. According to the report, the incident may have violated the rights of citizens and could amount to an offense under the Prison Act. The commission also points to the broader consequences that followed, including prison breaks in other locations.
The issue is no longer limited to Lamichhane’s personal conduct. It has become part of a larger debate about whether political influence was used to override legal procedures during one of the most turbulent moments in recent Nepali politics.
What makes the situation more complicated for Lamichhane is that this finding comes from a body separate from the Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission.
The Karki Commission had largely accepted Lamichhane’s explanation and did not recommend action against him. Many believed that chapter was closed. The NHRC report has reopened it.
That does not mean Lamichhane faces immediate prosecution. The government would first need to decide whether to act on the commission’s recommendations. Investigators would then have to establish individual responsibility.
Still, politics often operates on perception as much as legal outcomes.
The timing is particularly uncomfortable. The RSP is heading toward its first national convention, where Lamichhane is expected to continue as party president. Instead of entering the convention from a position of strength, he now faces renewed questions about his conduct during the Gen Z movement.
The report also places several RSP lawmakers under investigation. That broadens the challenge from an individual issue into a party issue.
Another reason the report has attracted attention is the contrast with Prime Minister Balen Shah.
Both the NHRC and the Karki Commission examined Balen’s role during the movement. Critics had accused him of encouraging protesters through public statements and social media posts. Yet the commission ultimately did not recommend action against him.
As a result, some observers have started comparing the treatment of Balen and Lamichhane. Within political circles, questions are already being raised about how the report may affect the balance of influence inside the ruling camp.
For now, there is little evidence supporting claims of a political conspiracy. The simpler explanation may be that investigators found different levels of involvement and evidence against different individuals.
Even so, the contrast is politically important. One leader emerged with a clean chit while another was pulled into a fresh investigation.
The bigger risk for Lamichhane may not be immediate legal action. It may be the gradual accumulation of unresolved allegations.
He is already facing legal battles linked to cooperative fraud cases. The NHRC report adds another layer of scrutiny. Even if no charges ultimately follow, repeated investigations can shape public perception and weaken a leader’s ability to claim moral authority.
The report also carries implications beyond Nepal. Human rights findings are often reviewed during international vetting processes. While the consequences may not be immediate, unresolved allegations can complicate foreign travel, participation in international programs and public standing abroad.
For Lamichhane, the NHRC report is not a final verdict. It is a new stage in a continuing political and legal struggle.
Whether it becomes a major threat or merely another controversy will depend on what investigators uncover next and how the government responds. For now, though, the report has ensured that questions surrounding his release from prison are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Login to add a comment