Nepal’s transitional justice process has entered a sensitive and defining phase. The recent ordinance leading to the cessation of tenure of commissioners from the transitional justice bodies has created an institutional pause at a moment when continuity is both necessary and expected. At the same time, the upcoming visit of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence places Nepal’s commitments under renewed international attention.
This convergence of developments should not be viewed solely as a disruption. It is, more importantly, an opportunity to reaffirm purpose, restore confidence, and reinvigorate a process that carries deep national and moral significance.
Having had the privilege of serving as a Commissioner and leading the thematic area of truth-seeking within the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), I have witnessed firsthand the complexity, sensitivity, and urgency of this mandate. Truth-seeking in Nepal cannot be reduced to a procedural exercise. It is an inherently human process, grounded in memory, dignity, and the lived experiences of victims and communities across the country.
Our work was guided by a commitment to inclusivity anchored in the principle of leaving no one behind. This required careful identification and engagement of a wide range of stakeholders with due diligence: from victims’ families and civil society organizations to community leaders, traditional healers, and representatives of state institutions. Each perspective contributed to a more complete understanding of the truth. Such inclusivity is not simply desirable; it is essential for legitimacy.
Nepal’s greatest strength lies in its social fabric. Communities dwelling with multiple identities have repeatedly shown resilience in the face of conflict, disaster, and political uncertainty, often stepping in where formal systems fall short. There is a deeply rooted culture of coexistence, where diversity has not fractured the social core, and a continued preference for dialogue over prolonged confrontation. Families and communities carry memory across generations, ensuring that demands for truth and dignity do not fade with time. This moral continuity, now reinforced by growing civic engagement and the assertiveness of younger voices, reflects a society that has not abandoned its commitment to justice, even when institutions have struggled to deliver it.
Reviewing transitional justice
At the same time, Nepal must confront its persistent weaknesses with equal honesty. The normalization of delay in justice processes has gradually eroded public trust, creating a sense that accountability can be indefinitely postponed. Institutional limitations, combined with a tendency to prioritize political compromise over truth, have slowed meaningful progress. There is also a broader societal discomfort with confronting difficult truths, often leading to silence where clarity is needed. Transitional justice processes have not always been sufficiently victim-centered, leaving affected families feeling included but not fully heard. Together, these challenges point to a critical gap between the values Nepal upholds and the systems it operates, one that must be addressed if truth-seeking is to genuinely rebuild trust and strengthen democratic accountability.
Reaffirming a Victim-Centered Approach
At its core, truth-seeking is about restoring dignity. It is about acknowledging harm, validating suffering, and creating space for recognition. Nepal has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to a victim-centered approach; the present moment calls for translating that commitment into consistent practice. This means ensuring that victims are not only consulted but meaningfully engaged in shaping the direction of the process. Special care must be taken to reach those who remain at the margins, women, rural communities, and historically excluded groups whose access to formal processes is often limited. Inclusion is not an abstract ideal; it is the foundation of legitimacy.
Ensuring Continuity with Credibility
The current institutional gap underscores the importance of timely and credible appointments. The process of selecting new commissioners offers a critical opportunity to reinforce public trust. Transparent, merit-based, and consultative appointments will be essential in ensuring that the commissions can resume their work with renewed confidence and independence. Institutional continuity is not simply about filling positions; it is about safeguarding the integrity of the process. The progress made, however incremental, must be preserved, built upon, and accelerated.
Aligning with International Commitments
Nepal’s transitional justice process has always been situated within a broader framework of international human rights commitments. The visit of the UN Special Rapporteur should be embraced in this spirit as a constructive engagement that can help strengthen national efforts. Open dialogue, transparency, and a willingness to reflect on recommendations will signal Nepal’s continued commitment to global standards. At the same time, it is important to underscore that Nepal’s process is also uniquely its own, shaped by its history, context, and social fabric. The challenge and the opportunity lie in harmonizing these dimensions.
Strengthening the Practice of Truth-Seeking
It is important to recognize a key conceptual distinction that continues to shape Nepal’s approach. Much of our understanding of truth-seeking remains influenced by a criminal justice lens, one that prioritizes individual cases, strict evidentiary standards, and the attribution of liability. While essential in its own domain, this approach does not fully capture the purpose of truth-seeking in a transitional justice context. Here, the objective is broader and more integrative: to uncover patterns of violations, examine institutional roles, and situate individual experiences within a wider historical and social narrative. Strengthening this distinction is important, as it allows truth-seeking to complement judicial processes while also fulfilling its unique role in providing a fuller, collective account of the past that can inform reconciliation, reform, and non-recurrence.
Looking Ahead: A Shared Responsibility
Nepal’s journey toward truth and justice has been long and, at times, difficult. Yet the commitment to this path remains evident in the resilience of victims, the engagement of civil society, and the continued attention of the international community.
The present moment calls for collective responsibility. The Government of Nepal has a central role in ensuring that institutional mechanisms are restored swiftly and credibly. At the same time, all stakeholders, national and international, must continue to engage constructively, with patience and purpose. The upcoming visit of the UN Special Rapporteur is an opportunity to demonstrate that Nepal remains committed to moving forward, not perfectly, but genuinely. By reaffirming a victim-centered approach, ensuring institutional continuity, and embracing constructive dialogue, Nepal can turn this moment of transition into one of renewed direction.
Ultimately, truth-seeking is not only about the past. It is about shaping a future grounded in dignity, accountability, and trust. That aspiration remains within reach if approached with sincerity, inclusiveness, and resolve.
A Moment for Measured Leadership
Enforced disappearance does not become a “historical issue” simply because time has passed. It remains a continuing violation until truth is delivered. That is the legal standard, but in Nepal, it is also becoming a political one.
The country’s transitional justice process was meant to respond to this reality. Instead, prolonged delay has changed its meaning. Truth-seeking is no longer just about closure for families of the disappeared. It is now about whether the state can still command trust from a generation that has grown up with unfinished justice as the accepted norm.
This is where Nepal is quietly shifting. A younger generation often labeled Gen Z, but more accurately understood as a politically aware, rights-conscious public, is no longer treating truth-seeking as a symbolic post-conflict exercise. For them, it is a basic test of governance. If truth can be delayed indefinitely, then accountability itself becomes negotiable.
That shift is both hopeful and dangerous. Hopeful, because it signals a society that is less willing to accept silence. Dangerous, because when truth is consistently postponed, disbelief in institutions becomes inherited rather than learned.
The real question for Nepal is no longer whether truth-seeking is important. It is whether the state still has the credibility and capacity to deliver it in time for those who are no longer willing to wait. Because in the end, truth delayed is not just justice denied, it is trust rewritten across generations with profound consequences.
Finally, while the present government was not a direct party to the armed conflict, it nonetheless carries the responsibility of representing the state and, with that, the moral duty to heal a nation still marked by its legacy. Taking such a step would not be an admission of culpability, but an act of statesmanship. In Nepal’s context, where communities have long relied on acknowledgment, dialogue, and social harmony to mend deep wounds, a sincere public apology holds immense transformative power. It affirms truth, restores dignity to victims, and signals a willingness to rebuild trust between the state and its citizens. For many conflict-affected families who have waited decades for recognition, such a gesture would resonate far beyond symbolism; it would validate their suffering and bring a sense of inclusion into the national narrative. By choosing to offer this acknowledgment, the government would demonstrate that leadership is not only about distancing itself from the past, but about courageously engaging with it to build a more just and cohesive future. Such an initiative would be widely welcomed, not as a political gesture, but as a long-overdue affirmation of empathy, dignity, and national responsibility.
