Acquittal of Colonel Lama 
The acquittal of Nepal Army Colonel Kumar Lama—who on September 6th was cleared by the Central Criminal Court in London of all charges pressed against him in the UK—raises many questions. Lama had already served three years behind bars, on twin charges of torture related to the decade-long civil war in Nepal, before the court decided that there was “insufficient evidence” to establish his guilt. Lama had been arrested under ‘universal jurisdiction’, which, according to Amnesty International, holds that “certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole, that… no place should be a safe haven for those who have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances”. The United Nations also outlines the responsibility of the Security Council “to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of universal jurisdiction per se; in fact, its goals appear noble. But it is in their application that things look dicey. 

Take the case of Colonel Lama again. Was it right of the British judiciary to take up a case related to the Nepali civil war even before Nepal had formed its transitional justice bodies? One reason for it may be the inordinate delay over the formation of Nepal’s twin transitional justice mechanisms—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons. According to the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which marked a formal end of the decade-long Maoist insurgency, the two bodies were to be formed within six months of the agreement. It took eight years to put them in place. The British judiciary seems to have been guided by the belief that justice delayed is justice denied. But surely it was wrong to detain someone for three years if the evidence against him was thin. And if Lama is not guilty of the charges leveled against him, the British government must as surely compensate him for his three years of continued anguish. Lama’s acquittal after a protracted legal battle will also make other countries think twice before they invoke universal jurisdiction unless there is a water-tight case. This is how it should be. Otherwise universal jurisdiction risks being so abused that it loses all its legitimacy.   

But Lama’s case should also serve as a timely reminder to Nepal that the longer it takes to deliver justice to thousands of conflict victims, the more common these cases of Nepali citizens being tried for war crimes abroad could become. Now that we have the twin transitional justice bodies, all cases filed with them must be adequately investigated and those found guilty of grave rights violations punished so that conflict victims can finally close that tear-soaked chapter in their lives. It is as important to incorporate as many suggestions of rights bodies and our own judiciary as is feasible. Even then, not everyone will be satisfied, including many of our international friends. But as international experience also suggests, there are no neat solutions when it comes to dealing with alleged war crimes. Yet if we can somehow get to the end of the process, the chances of more Nepali nationals being tried in international courts for war crimes will be greatly reduced. Even for those who are tried, they can claim that they have already been through a credible transitional justice system in their own country.    

 
• trial and error
 
• nepal army colonel
 
• kumar lama
 
• central criminal court
 
• london
 
• editorial