KATHMANDU: A policy debate is currently unfolding in Kathmandu over the question of who should have authority over the mobilization of police forces in the districts: the Chief District Officer (CDO) or the Inspector General of Police (IGP)?
The issue has gained prominence following incidents in Taplejung district, where police, acting under the direction of the CDO, engaged in violent actions such as lathi-charges and shootings against protesters.
This has raised questions about the balance of power between the CDO and the IGP.
While the CDO has traditionally had control over district-level law enforcement, the ongoing debate has intensified with the introduction of a bill aimed at amending and unifying the law on Nepal Police.
The proposed legislation has sparked controversy, particularly over Section 7, which outlines the powers of the CDO.
Dispute over the Bill
The new bill, currently under discussion in the House of Representatives, has drawn strong criticism from opposition parties and legal analysts.
Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan, a member of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee and former Inspector General of Nepal Police, also voiced concerns about the bill.
They argue that the bill seeks to grant excessive powers to the CDO, a position that is not explicitly recognized by the constitution.
Critics assert that this move contradicts the spirit of federalism, as it appears to centralize police control under the CDO, despite the country’s shift towards a federal system.
Section 7 controversy
The specific point of contention lies in Section 7 of the proposed bill. The bill stipulates that police personnel will be under the control, direction, and supervision of the CDO in matters related to peace, security, and the prevention and control of crime at the district level.
This provision effectively reaffirms the authority of the CDO over police forces in the district, as outlined in the 2012 Police Act, which also places district police under the CDO’s direction for maintaining peace and security.
The opposition argues that this concentration of power undermines the role of the IGP, who should ideally have full authority over police mobilization, including coordination with the CDO, without the CDO exercising direct command over the police forces.
Former IGPs express concern
The controversy has escalated following a meeting between former Inspectors General of Police (IGPs) and Prime Minister KP Oli.
Earlier this month, former IGPs Achyut Krishna Kharel, Motilal Bohara, Upendra Kant Aryal, Dhiraj Pratap Singh, and others, met with the Prime Minister to express their dissatisfaction with the proposed bill.
During the meeting, the former IGPs voiced strong objections to the provision that places police under the control of the CDO.
They emphasized that this would effectively make the police a subordinate branch of the Ministry of Home Affairs and would dilute the autonomy of the IGP.
The former IGPs called for the bill to be amended, advocating for a system where the IGP alone has the authority to mobilize the police, with the CDO playing a coordinating role rather than holding direct command over police personnel.
Political context
The debate comes at a time when the government, led by the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, is considering amendments to the constitution to address political stability.
However, despite promises to address constitutional reforms and make necessary amendments, the leadership has yet to reach a consensus on the extent of the CDO’s authority.
The current government has been accused of pushing through the bill to strengthen the CDO’s powers, which some critics see as a step backward from the intended goals of federalism established in the 2015 Constitution.
Provincial governments raise complaints over CDO’s power
Provincial governments in Nepal have long expressed dissatisfaction with the federal government’s decision to maintain the Chief District Officer (CDO) as a powerful figure in the country’s administrative system.
Provincial leaders claim that despite the shift to a federal structure, the CDO’s authority has remained centralized, mirroring the governance style of the Panchayat era.
Earlier, Chief Ministers from the provinces approached the Ministry of Home Affairs, arguing that although Nepal had transitioned to a federal system, the authority was still heavily concentrated in the hands of the CDO.
They demanded that the Home Minister take full responsibility for peace and security in the districts, as they felt the CDO’s powers were undermining the provincial governments.
In a follow-up appeal, the provincial governments’ ministers for internal affairs and law urged Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak to pass the Police Province Act and grant police authority to the provincial governments.
Hira Sarki, the Internal Affairs and Law Minister of Sudurpaschim Province, voiced the concerns of the provincial ministers, telling Khabarhub, “As per the provisions of the constitution, we currently have no authority over the police. The authority lies with the union.”
Federal leaders weigh in
The issue has drawn responses from federal leaders, with Jivan Pariyar, Joint General Secretary of the Nepali Congress and member of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee of the Federal Parliament, defending the role of the CDO in maintaining home administration.
Pariyar emphasized that the CDO plays a crucial role in overseeing peace and security at the district level, and that police mobilization should remain under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Pariyar stated, “The police should be mobilized by the Home Office, and the IGP should also be mobilized by the Home Office. If peace and security need to be maintained in the district, the police should not take responsibility for it. The CDO should handle that.”
As the debate over the bill continues, both provincial and federal lawmakers are grappling with the balance of power between the CDO, IGP, and local authorities.
He added that if the proposed Bill to Amend and Unify the Nepal Police Act attempts to strip the police of their authority, it could be amended.
“If there is a provision that takes away the powers of the police, we will change it through an amendment,” Pariyar noted.
Concerns from former IGPs and lawmakers
Dhruba Bahadur Pradhan, a member of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee and former Inspector General of Nepal Police, also voiced concerns about the bill.
Pradhan criticized the provision that grants the CDO power to mobilize the police.
He argued that while local coordination with the police is essential, full mobilization should not lie with the CDO, as this could lead to political interference.
“Our political maturity has not yet developed to the point where mobilizing police should be allowed at the local level,” Pradhan said.
“Giving this power to the CDO could lead to abuse, influenced by party affiliation.”
He added that the bill is currently under review by the State Affairs Committee, and the ruling party has proposed amendments.
Madhesi parties’ opposition to CDO system
In addition to the concerns raised by federal and provincial governments, Madhesi political parties have long criticized the CDO system as a relic of centralized governance that contradicts the spirit of federalism.
Keshav Jha, a leader of the Rastriya Mukti Morcha, stated, “The CDO is an embodiment of the old centralized mindset that goes against the principles of federalism outlined in the constitution. The continuation of this provision is detrimental to the successful implementation of federalism in Nepal.”
Additional entities, such as the District Child Welfare Committee, District Peace Committee, District Cooperative Office, Land Conservation Office, Cottage and Small Industries, Women and Children Office, District Hospital, Irrigation and Drinking Water Offices, Cooperative Development Division, and District Sports Development Committee, have also been dissolved.
Madhesi parties argue that retaining the CDO system undermines the autonomy of local governments and reinforces centralized control, a point they have raised repeatedly in calls for reform.
Looking ahead
As the debate over the bill continues, both provincial and federal lawmakers are grappling with the balance of power between the CDO, IGP, and local authorities.
Amendments to the bill are expected, with the government indicating a willingness to revise provisions that could lead to the CDO having undue influence over police operations.
For now, the tension between maintaining centralized control and implementing the principles of federalism remains a significant issue in Nepal’s political landscape.
Dual policy in district structure
The Constitution of Nepal outlines a three-tier state structure, consisting of federal, provincial, and local levels of government.
However, a decade after the constitution’s implementation, this three-tier system has not been fully realized in practice. In some areas, district-level structures have been removed, while in others, they have been retained.
Despite the country transitioning to a federal system, key administrative bodies such as the District Administration Office, led by the Chief District Officer (CDO), and the District Police Offices, headed by the Superintendent of Police (SP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), continue to operate in all 77 districts.
On the other hand, several district-level offices have been abolished as part of the move to federalism.
These include the District Education Office, District Health Office, District Agricultural Development Office, District Animal Service Office, District Technical Office, and District Forest Office.
Additional entities, such as the District Child Welfare Committee, District Peace Committee, District Cooperative Office, Land Conservation Office, Cottage and Small Industries, Women and Children Office, District Hospital, Irrigation and Drinking Water Offices, Cooperative Development Division, and District Sports Development Committee, have also been dissolved.
However, the recently proposed police bill raises concerns as it appears to grant the Chief District Officer powers reminiscent of the old unitary system, reigniting debate over the extent of the CDO’s authority in the new federal framework.
Comment