Both domestic and foreign human rights monitors have repeatedly drawn the state’s attention to the entrenched culture of impunity in Nepal. Our transitional justice process is filled with loopholes, as current legislation on transitional justice permits amnesty even in cases of grave human rights violations from the decade-long Maoist conflict. Our chief anti-corruption body, the CIAA, has not successfully prosecuted a single sitting minister or high-level bureaucrat after 2007, even though there are reams of evidence of corruption in high places. Meanwhile, the prime minister says, without a shred of shame, that he is permitted by the constitution to enlist as many as 60 ministers when, in fact, the constitution clearly caps cabinet size at 25. Moreover, Sher Bahadur Deuba kept increasing the size of his cabinet even though the election code of conduct barred him from doing so. Even more problematically, among those enlisted as ministers were figures who have been previously implicated in various crimes. If the executive is reckless, the legislative is no more responsible. The parliament just enacted deeply flawed education bills, which allow unqualified teachers to teach in community schools and which effectively undo all the recent reforms in medical education. 

While the parliament was at it, it also passed a law whereby all the past and present President and Vice-presidents of the country would be immune from criminal prosecution concerning their work while in office. Although this may not seem like a big deal—after all, the ceremonial president and vice-president have very limited executive powers—the intent behind this legislation is dangerous. It is true that our president and vice-president are ceremonial, but in the past there have been multiple cases when they tried to go beyond their constitutionally-prescribed roles. The perfect example of this was the 2009 decision of President Ram Baran Yadav to not to endorse Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s sacking of army chief Rookmangud Katawal. Perhaps there was some merit to Yadav’s decision, as the army chief’s removal could have set a dangerous precedent of open political meddling in this largely apolitical organization. What is indubitable is that Yadav stepped on legally dicey grounds to do so. During his more than seven years in office, Yadav repeatedly came into controversy for his ‘political’ remarks. Likewise, the office of his successor, Bidya Devi Bhandari, has also made some questionable decisions, for instance in asking the government for Rs 160 million for a new fleet of vehicles, even though the office already has plenty of expensive vehicles at its disposal. 
If the state head sticks to her prescribed ceremonial role, then she will never come into controversy. It is only when she is seen as working against the ethos of her office, or to be breaking her constitutional bounds, that she gets into needless disputes and controversies. By making the president and vice-president immune from criminal prosecution, the parliament has effectively given them carte blanche to do pretty much as they please. Such regressive laws that remind Nepalis of the days of autocratic monarchy should have no place in the new federal democratic republic. 

 
• law