Nepal Bar Association opposes prosecution of Oli, Lekhak under retrospective laws

The Nepal Bar Association has expressed opposition to the National Human Rights Commission’s recommendation to prosecute former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak under retrospective laws. In a statement issued on Wednesday, Bar Association General Secretary Kedar Prasad Koirala objected to the report made public by the commission on Jestha 13. The investigation into the incidents of Bhadra 23 and 24 was led by commission member Lily Thapa.

Based on the committee’s report, the commission concluded that Oli and Lekhak, who were in office at the time, were involved in human rights violations. It recommended that the government prosecute them under retrospective laws.

The commission’s recommendation, which was sent to the government, stated that since human rights violations were confirmed, action should be taken under Article 249, Sub-article 2 (g) of Nepal’s Constitution. It further noted that although current laws do not provide for punishment for such human rights violations, a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court in the case of advocate Madhav Basnet vs. Nepal Government, necessitating the creation of new laws for prosecution.

The Bar Association argues that the commission’s recommendation contradicts the Constitution and international human rights declarations and covenants to which Nepal is a party, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

General Secretary Koirala stated that creating retrospective laws to affect past actions undermines the Constitution and the rule of law. He warned that such actions could mark the end of natural justice and legal governance, opposing the commission’s recommendation as contrary to Nepal’s Constitution and international human rights commitments.

The Bar has requested an official copy of the commission’s recommendation and expressed concern that proceeding with retrospective laws could lead to arbitrary governance. The statement signed by Koirala highlighted that criminalizing administrative activities through retrospective laws without considering the implications could lead to a vengeful and arbitrary regime.

The Bar Association also claimed that the commission’s report is selective and not comprehensive, stating that it would provide further opinions only after a detailed study of the report. It has called for a dignified protest against such selective recommendations.

The commission’s recommendation includes fundamental aspects of retrospective laws, suggesting a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 300,000 rupees, or both. It also proposed the formation of a special court for hearing the case.

Additionally, the recommendation suggests barring those found guilty from holding political appointments or standing for any elected position for at least five years, restricting them from administrative responsibilities for at least three years, and prohibiting foreign travel for the same duration.