By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
On November 8, 2022, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institution (GANHRI), an umbrella institution of NHRIs recommended downgrading the status of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) from A to B. It expressed serious concern over the appointment of the NHRC’s office bearers saying it is not in compliance with the Paris Principles (UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134-1993) and is also not independent of the government’s executive control. At this stage, it is important to assess what really went wrong with our NHRC that prompted GANHRI to recommend its degrading.
NHRC established as an independent statutory body in 2000, has now been elevated to a powerful constitutional body with a commensurate mandate, competence and independence. The NHRCN was elevated to a constitutional body by the Article 131 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 and by Article 248 of the present Constitution of Nepal (2015). NHRC Nepal has a separate sphere of responsibilities as mandated in the Constitution of Nepal.
The NHRCN was created in response to the 1991 UN-sponsored meeting of the representatives of national institutions held in Paris. The meeting laid down the Paris Principles, a detailed set of principles on the status of national institutions. These principles, subsequently endorsed by the UN Commission on Human Rights (Resolution 1992/54 of 3 March 1992) and the UN General Assembly (Resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) have become the foundation and reference point for the establishment and operation of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal as well.
In 2022, during the final hearing, the Sub-Committee of Accreditation (SCA) of GANHRI asked four questions to the NHRC. It sought the status of a verdict of the Supreme Court case challenging the appointment of the NHRC member. It also asked the NHRC to furnish its details on promoting and protecting human rights in Nepal. The credibility of the appointment process of the NHRC members, the mandate and visibility of NHRC and its action taken to demonstrate fulfilling its promotion and protection mandate were other issues raised by GANHRI.
To utter dismay, the NHRC failed to respond to these questions satisfactorily with logic, evidence, fact and examples to justify the appointments, exercising mandate and protection-related issues. The sub-standard report on the part of NHRC prompted GANHRI to recommend downgrading the NHRC’s status.
This is not the first time the issue of the appointment process, its exercise mandate and human rights-related issues have been unmasked. Ever since it came into existence, the NHRC has come under public scrutiny both outside and inside the country.
Exception apart, there is hardly any announcement regarding the chief of the constitutional body. The chief is appointed based on personal experience and academic background. Priority is given to those who pledge loyalty to their masters and serve as per their interest. In plain words, what generally matters are their political affiliation and not their academic background and personal experience. It is stupid to expect something miraculous and innovative from these select crooks.
In the recent past, the protection and promotion of human rights-related issues have also eclipsed its past legacy. The NHRC did carry out numerous works for the protection of human rights that would not have been possible in the absence of the commission. But it failed to present the number of victims who were provided justice while prosecuting the perpetrators of human rights violations. This information was crucial for GANHRI to retain the status of the NHRC.
The GANHRI report also shows that NHRC does not demonstrate adequate efforts in addressing rights issues such as discrimination against women, castes, indigenous people and the LGBTIQ. The report also points out that NHRC has miserably failed to implement the domestic laws laying the ground to breed a culture of impunity.
The GANHRI report will also raise the eyebrows of International donors who have been funding NHRC to protect and promote human rights in Nepal. They have been sourcing to see human rights flourishing in Nepal. But their efforts, resource and time were not fully utilized annoying them. With this, one should not be surprised if the international community cease their funding to NHRC. At the same time, the government is likely to face awkward moments in the Council’s next session and other UN human rights treaty mechanisms.
GANHRI in its report reads that NHRC maintains A status until the SCA’s second session in October 2023. Within this period, the NHRC has ample opportunity to provide evidence, fact and examples to convince GANHRI that it has continued its conformity with the Paris Principles. It has to prove that the appointments were constitutional and in line with domestic and international laws.
If it fails to do so, the degradation of NHRC is inevitable.
It should not attempt to hide evidence. It should tell that the appointments were made through an ordinance and there was no public hearing, no public announcement for the appointment.
In this situation, even if the NHRC gets more years instead of one, it is impossible to provide the evidence and documents that they did not happen. We hope that it will not negate the rules of the game and convince the international organizations of its mandate in protecting and promoting human rights in Nepal.
Login to add a comment