KATHMANDU: Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal has repeatedly accused former Prime Minister and UML Chair KP Sharma Oli of “criminal negligence” during his recent interviews and media briefings.
Aryal, a lawyer-turned-politician who assumed the Home Minister’s position following the GenZ movement, has been critical of Oli’s handling of the incidents that occurred during the unrest.
According to Dictionary.com, “criminal negligence” refers to the criminal responsibility arising from harm or death caused by one’s reckless disregard for others’ safety or care. For instance, keeping a loaded gun within a child’s reach and being held criminally liable for any resulting harm or death.
The concept of criminal negligence has been recognized in courts since as early as 1685, and many countries’ legal systems have clear provisions for such offenses. Section 219 of Canada’s Criminal Code defines it explicitly, while Australia’s Criminal Code Act 1995 (Section 5.5) states that an act constitutes negligence when “a person’s conduct involves such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, involving a high risk of physical harm or damage to property.”
Similarly, the UK’s Practical Law describes negligence as conduct that falls below the expected standard of care.
In this context, Minister Aryal’s remarks appear to suggest that Oli failed to fulfill his responsibilities as the then prime minister during the incidents of September 8 and 9, amounting to what he terms “criminal negligence.”
A judicial inquiry commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki has been formed to investigate the events. The commission has already directed those who were in charge as prime minister and home minister at the time not to leave the Kathmandu Valley.
If the commission’s report concludes, as Aryal has claimed, that Oli’s actions amounted to criminal negligence, the former prime minister could potentially face criminal proceedings under both domestic and international legal principles.
Comment