May 27, 2005

By Krishna Man Pradhan

Krishna Man Pradhan

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), formed as per the NHRC Act 1997, has completed five years. Nepalese had to experience the bitter truth of intensive debate regarding the formation of the NHRC and selection of its members for three years even after the enactment of NHRC Act. It is the need of the hour for the civil society to discuss and analyze how successful the NHRC has been in working as per the letter and spirit of NHRC Act 1997 and, thereby, formulate future strategy. If the new office-bearers of NHRC work in accordance with such evaluation and recommendation (by civil society), past problems would not repeat.

In view of the current situation in the country and at a time when 10/15 persons are losing their lives everyday, it is needless to discuss how important the role of NHRC is. It is appropriate to discuss how common people evaluated the past five-year tenure of the NHRC. Firstly, the government invoked section 3 of NHRC Act 1997 when appointing chairman and members. But since the section 3 (a) specifically mentioned the qualifications of ‘former chief justice’ or ‘former justice and since it did not have any age-restriction, the government ended up appointing a senior most person as the NHRC chairman. When appointing its members as per section 3 (b), then government seems to have chosen two persons representing two political parties. Likewise, as per section 3 (c) the government appointed one woman and one from Terai region. Basically, in the past five years, the NHRC was led by a senior most person whom Nepalese considered as guardian who could neither provide intellectual input nor social leadership and because of whom, the Commission resembled a private company or political party. Furthermore, because of squabbling among the five members, the government was able to make its own definition of human rights. The members only managed to project their individual images and went on foreign junkets 2/3 times a month. As per the section 8 (c) of the NHRC Act, the quorum was determined at 3 members, which resulted in individuals overshadowing the institution and, at times, the Commission was not fully represented.

When looking from the standpoint of civil society at the functions supposed to have been carried out by the NHRC as per the section 9 of its Act, it seems that the Commission limited itself to the role of an NGO. The major functions of the NHRC include supporting in formulation of policy; coordinating and leading the NGOs; playing the role of mediator between the government and the rebels; making field trips to sites of human rights violations; preparing action plans; building the process of submitting field reports; pressurizing the government to implement the report; seeking donor support and coordination etc. However, the analysis of NHRC’s works in the past five years show that it was limited to organizing workshops, discussions, training and research just like any other NGO. It is not appropriate to single out the NHRC for these weaknesses because we, the civil society, who should have alerted and warned the Commission from time to time, ended up attending its programs and making sweet comments resulting in the rise of Hitler-attitude in the Commission.

Currently, there are discussions regarding the Recommendation Committee to make the selection and appointment of new members and chairman of NHRC. Amid these discussions, His Majesty’s Government has amended the existing provision in the section 4 of the Act, thereby, having the Committee headed by Chief Justice and with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Foreign Minister as its members. This Committee should select able and qualified person as Chairman and not some loyal senior citizen. Likewise, when appointing its members as per section 3 (b), the Committee should select persons who have made important contributions in the field of law, human rights, social or media sector. It should not repeat the mistake by distributing quotas in the name of Terai, hill or women. It should also select only those women who have made real contribution in the human rights and women’s rights sector both at national and international level.

It is also a matter of common fact that certain section of civil society always engages in lobbying and advocating when there is vacancy in some constitutional body – which only results in quantitative filling up of those vacancies. The Committee should also be vigilant about this trend.

While expressing early congratulations to the would-be chairman and would-be members of new NHRC team, we would like to see them continue the good works carried out in the past while working to satisfy the aspirations of world community by prudently taking into considerations the opinions and recommendations forwarded by all stakeholders and by upholding the NHRC Act and desires of Nepalese people. On the one hand, to free the country of its current image as a rights-abusing place the NHRC team would need to play the role of mediator to create favorable atmosphere between the state and rebels; on the other hand, it would need to prevent individuals from taking over and forge policies for institutional development, implement the policies, and stop working just under the direction of donors and rather create supportive roles for donors in the implementation of its policies and programs. There is a need to enhance the capacity to fight against the abuse of human rights by roping in all the civil society into one mainstream. The state side, too, should need to avoid repeating past mistakes. In order to fulfill the objectives of NHRC Act 1997 as per the desire of the civil society and the Nepalese people, it would be wise on the part of the state to immediately activate the Recommendation Committee to appoint the new chairman and members of the NHRC and, thereby, show its commitment towards human rights.