KATHMANDU: The Nepal Bar Association (NBA) has announced that matters related to transitional justice should be resolved in accordance with the detailed peace agreement and, hence, handled through the concerned commissions formed for the purpose.
Issuing a press statement on Tuesday, NBA expressed its concern over recent events udnergoing in the legal sector after Supreme Court (SC) received transitional justice related case against Prime Minister and CPN-Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’.
After a case was filed in SC demanding an investigation against Prime Minister and the then rebel-supremo Prachanda, the bar said that the issues of armed-conflict days should be handled in accordance with the spirit of the peace agreement and not through the regular courts.
Last Friday, while ordering the filing of a writ against Dahal, SC ruled that the issue of transitional justice cannot be prolonged forever and said that it should not be stopped from proceeding through the regular courts when the commissions formed for the purpose are inactive.
In the detailed peace agreement, it is mentioned that the implementation of transitional justice will be done through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons.
“with the aim of bringing the peace process to a conclusion, the detailed peace agreement in the past, the Constitution of Nepal and the established Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the work, duties and jurisdiction of the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons have been mentioned, while both commissions are carrying out tasks under their jurisdiction. It is necessary to take the responsibility of the Nepal government and the constituted commissions to bring the peace process to a logical conclusion and provide proper justice to the victims,” the NBA statement said.
NBA President Gopalkrishna Ghimire and General Secretary Anjita Khanal issued a joint statement calling for not to make statements that could lead to disputes over jurisdiction.
“This association has drawn serious attention to the fact that there have been confusing expressions that could create jurisdictional disputes on the same subject when the concerned bodies are supposed to act on matters under their jurisdiction,” the Bar statement stated.
Comment