Submit your Article

The principle of the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in the structure of modern democratic governance. It divides governmental powers into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The idea behind this separation is to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power, ensuring a system of checks and balances that maintains democratic integrity and upholds the rule of law. In theory, each branch operates independently and acts as a counterbalance to the others, safeguarding individual freedoms and preventing authoritarian rule.

In the context of Nepal, the separation of powers has faced significant challenges in the post-republic era, particularly after the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. While the country formally transitioned into a republic, the violation of the principle of separation of powers has led to institutional weaknesses and the erosion of democratic values. This article explores the significance of the separation of powers in a democratic system, examines instances of its violation in Nepal’s post-republic era and highlights the consequences for the nation’s democratic health.

Importance of separation of powers

The separation of powers plays a crucial role in preventing the abuse of power by ensuring that no single entity has control over all aspects of governance. By dividing authority among different branches of government, each one serves as a check on the others, protecting citizens’ rights and preventing any one branch from becoming too dominant.

This system also promotes accountability. When power is shared, the legislature can scrutinize the actions of the executive, and the judiciary ensures that laws are applied fairly and impartially. This encourages transparency and makes those in power answerable to the public.

One of the most important aspects of the separation of powers is its role in safeguarding individual freedoms. The judiciary acts as a guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that neither the executive nor the legislature can infringe upon fundamental freedoms. This protection helps to maintain a free and just society.

Moreover, the separation of powers contributes to the stability of governance. By distributing power among different branches, it helps counterbalance fluctuations or the concentration of power in any one area. This balance prevents instability and ensures that the government remains fair and resilient, even during times of political change.

Violation unabated

Nepal, after the declaration of the republic in 2008, adopted a democratic framework based on the principle of the separation of powers. However, the country’s post-monarchical era has seen numerous violations of this principle, which have had serious repercussions on the health of Nepalese democracy.

Executive overreach, legislative subjugation

One of the primary violations in Nepal’s recent history involves the dominance of the executive branch over the legislature. Since the reemergence of the parliamentary party system in Nepal in 1990, the House of Representatives has been dissolved six times. The fifth dissolution occurred on 20 Dec 2020, when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, acting on the recommendation of his cabinet, advised President Bidya Devi Bhandari to dissolve the House. President Bhandari accepted the recommendation the same day and announced that elections would be held in two phases: 30 April and 10 May 2021.

However, on 23 Feb 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional and ordered its reinstatement. The court issued a mandamus, directing that the House be convened within 13 days. As a result of the ruling, a session of the House was held on 7 March 2021.

In the sixth instance, on 22 May 2021, Prime Minister Oli again recommended to President Bhandari the dissolution of the House and the scheduling of mid-term elections for 12 Nov and 19 Nov 2021. The President accepted the recommendation, and the House of Representatives was dissolved once again, with the election dates announced accordingly.

Impeachment

In Feb 2021, Nepal’s ruling parties filed an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, making him the second chief justice in the country’s history to face such a motion, following Sushila Karki in 2017. At the time, the Nepali Congress, the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) supported the motion against Rana, with Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister. The motion against Karki, filed in 2017, was led by Congress lawmaker Min Bahadur Bishwakarma, while the current motion against Rana was proposed by key figures from the ruling parties.

Karki’s impeachment led to her suspension and Gopal Parajuli temporarily taking over, with Rana later staying the motion. After Parajuli’s resignation, Rana became chief justice in 2019. Now, almost five years later, Rana faces his own impeachment motion, primarily due to accusations of corruption, misconduct and failure to perform his duties.

Consequences

When one branch of government begins encroaching on the others, it weakens the very foundation of democratic institutions. The independence and effectiveness of these institutions are compromised, leading to a loss of public trust in the democratic process. Over time, this erosion of faith increases the risk of authoritarianism taking root.

In Nepal, the manipulation of the separation of powers has contributed to political instability. Political parties often use state institutions to consolidate their own power, which has led to ongoing factionalism and conflict. This pattern is evident in the frequent changes in government leadership and the breakdown of the political system, leaving the country in a state of uncertainty.

For the people of Nepal, this constant political drama has led to growing disillusionment. The disregard for constitutional principles has made citizens skeptical of the political process, which in turn has resulted in lower voter participation. This disillusionment weakens the democratic process and erodes public support for democratic governance.

The lack of independence in the judiciary has further exacerbated this situation. When the legal system is not allowed to operate free from political influence, citizens lose confidence in it. Corruption, bias and the absence of fair justice create a culture of impunity, where political interests subvert the rule of law and undermine justice for all.

Conclusion

The separation of powers is essential in maintaining a healthy and functioning democracy. It ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of one branch of government and that each branch can check the excesses of the others. Nepal’s post-republic era has been marked by several violations of this principle, leading to political instability, diminished trust in democratic institutions and public disillusionment with governance.

To restore the integrity of Nepal’s democracy, it is crucial to uphold the separation of powers and strengthen the independence of each branch of the state. Without this, the nation risks further undermining its democratic progress and succumbing to authoritarian tendencies. Only through respect for the separation of powers can Nepal ensure a more accountable, transparent and vibrant democracy for future generations.

Agriculture is one of the most important sectors in Nepal, contributing 23.95 percent to the nation’s GDP and providing jobs to more than 60 percent of the population. However, the sector faces several problems, mainly food security, attributed to the high usage of imported fertilizers, most of which are urea. In fiscal year 2024-25, Nepal plans to import around 550,000 tons of chemical fertilizers, with urea constituting a bulk. Moreover, the Nepal government has allocated a budget Rs 27.95bn as subsidy to ensure a steady supply of fertilizers to the farmers. Hence, the government bears nearly two-thirds of the fertilizer price to help alleviate the pressure on farmers. However, constant supply breaks and bad distribution channels threaten food production in Nepal, necessitating the construction of a urea manufacturing plant to boost food security.

JICA study report 1984

Nepal’s attempt at local production of fertilizer began in 1984, when Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) conducted a feasibility study on the production of 275 TPD green urea plants in Nepal. The primary focus was to produce green hydrogen via water electrolysis, one of the percussors for urea. However, Nepal’s hydropower capacity was only 156 MW at that time, making electricity per unit price very high. The study concluded that the water electrolysis method was only feasible if the electricity price was reduced by 40 percent, and hence the idea was abandoned.

IBN report 2015

The Infrastructure Development Corporation, Karnataka (IDeCK) and the Institution of Agricultural Technologists (IAT), along with Shah Consultant International Limited, Nepal, under the Office of Investment Board Nepal (OIBN) conducted the 2015 feasibility study on 700 kT/year urea plant, which became the second major attempt to develop a urea fertilizer plant in Nepal since the 1984 JICA study. The study evaluated Nepal’s escalating fertilizer import situation as price instabilities and supply chain breakdowns endangered national food security. The analysis assessed three production methods: electrolysis, coal gasification and natural gas steam reforming for hydrogen production. The study concluded that using natural gas as feedstock made the urea plant feasible. The research team recommended that Nepal should import natural gas from Jagdishpur (India) through pipelines followed by plant construction on a 400-acre site in Dhalkebar Dhanusha as the country lacks natural gas extraction capabilities. The evaluation showed that a natural gas-based plant costs $665m, coal gasification totalled $953m and electrolysis reached $1,305m. The research base considered that the government of Nepal would import natural gas at a fixed price from India for smooth operations of the urea plant. 

IBN comparative report 2021

The Investment Board Nepal (IBN) has prepared a report that examines two urea production methods, including natural gas-based and water electrolysis-based (green hydrogen) systems. The analysis for 701,250 T/year urea demonstrates that natural gas-based manufacturing meets financial criteria through cost-effective capital investments totaling $665m and production expenses amounting to $278 per ton. However, this process requires a 108-km gas pipeline from India. The risks associated with Indian natural gas imports become substantial due to two factors: India will deplete its gas reserves by 2040, and gas produced in the country will increase in price to double its current levels until then. This creates long-term supply uncertainty coupled with high costs. The water electrolysis process is environmentally friendly yet remains uncommercial because it comes with billion-dollar capital expenses ($1.3bn) and produces hydrogen at $656 per ton, requiring 450 MW of daily electrical power and CO₂ capture from cement facilities. According to the report, Dhalkebar stands out as the optimal location because of its existing infrastructure, and the authors endorse establishing a public-private funding partnership. The future development of green ammonia through water electrolysis requires subsidized electricity costs to become viable. The research demonstrates that local fertilizer production would decrease Nepal’s dependence on imported materials and subsidy programs, yet essential infrastructure development and supportive policies need implementation.

KU feasibility report 2022

The Green Hydrogen Lab at Kathmandu University evaluated the possibility of generating 200 kT/year of green urea in 2022 and submitted its findings to the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. The feasibility study primarily focused on the surplus hydroelectricity in Nepal, which serves as the key benefit for local green hydrogen production through water electrolysis, thus ensuring the proposed urea plant operates independently from Indian natural gas imports. The study promoted domestic renewable-based solutions for urea production as it recognized the risks and price instability of importing natural gas along with the difficulties of managing border pipelines. The use of green hydrogen instead of fossil fuels in plant operations would make Nepal a pioneer in sustainable industrial development through substantial carbon emission reduction. The research demonstrated how green urea production qualifies as carbon credit material suitable for international offset programs. The new income source generated from green hydrogen operations would increase project profitability, thus attracting foreign investment. The report advocates for government incentives, policy backing, and public-private partnership (PPP) to realize the successful deployment of the green urea plant that will strengthen Nepal’s food security, energy independence and climate commitments.

GGGI report 2024

In 2024, the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) Nepal performed extensive research on green fertilizer production in Nepal by creating Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Urea from green hydrogen. Researchers analyzed renewable energy integration into hydrogen production by obtaining 100 MW from the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA). The study focused on the production of 103,950 T/year green urea and 264,000 T/year DAP. WindPower Nepal and Hydrovert Services led the project forward by performing a Pre-FEED study to evaluate the technical aspects, economic viability and infrastructural requirements for building a green hydrogen-based fertilizer plant. The study assessed the Bhalu Chira site’s characteristics by examining its ability to accommodate the proposed facility through assessments of land resources and logistical and accessibility factors. The total capital cost of the green urea plant was calculated to be $284.88m, and the capital cost of DAP was around $268.26m. Green hydrogen utilization within the project will improve Nepal's food production independence alongside carbon footprint reduction initiatives. The research findings will create a base for upcoming green fertilizer industry policy decisions and investment decisions in Nepal.

Hariharpurgadhi pre-feasibility study 2024

In 2024, Hariharpurgadhi rural municipality (Sindhuli district) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Kathmandu University to conduct a pre-feasibility assessment of a 200 kT/year green urea production facility. The project's central point involved extracting carbon dioxide from cement factories in Hetauda before transporting it through a constructed pipeline to the urea production facility. The research demonstrated pipeline transport of CO₂ was not economical because of substantial construction expenses and complex transportation requirements. The pre-feasibility study recommended the construction of a cement industry along with the green urea plant at Hariharpurgadhi as the solution to maintain a continuous carbon dioxide supply for urea synthesis. The project could develop a sustainable industrial cycle through this combined strategy to convert cement-based CO₂ emissions into synthesized ammonia using green hydrogen. The research demonstrated that the proposed solution could help Nepal decrease its dependence on imported fertilizers and advance carbon capture and utilization (CCU) practices that support a sustainable agricultural sector.

Conclusion

A green urea plant establishment in Nepal will produce lasting advantages since the government has to allocate billions of rupees for agricultural sector fertilizer subsidies every year. The domestic production of urea from green hydrogen combined with local carbon dioxide supplies enables Nepal to decrease expensive import costs while establishing independent fertilizer availability. The stable fertilizer prices, along with prompt distribution, will help farmers decrease expenses while improving their productivity levels. National food security will be enhanced through this project because it delivers dependable fertilizer supplies that produce elevated crop harvests and safeguard against worldwide supply chain interruptions. The initiative allows Nepal to develop carbon credits from green hydrogen and industrial emission capture activities, supporting domestic climate goals and accessing international carbon financing. Further, Nepal could generate carbon credits that can be traded internationally, creating an additional revenue stream. Establishing a green urea plant will lead to employment opportunities at various stages, including construction, plant operation and maintenance, stimulating economic growth in the region. Moreover, a circular economy practice in Nepal can develop when setting up a cement sector alongside the urea plant to convert its CO₂ emissions into valuable products instead of atmospheric release. These strategic developments will empower Nepal’s agricultural activities while decreasing government financial burdens and realizing sustainable growth through new industrial development alongside environmental management.

Earlier this year, Nepal adopted its National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights. This NAP was launched by the government of Nepal, Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security (MoLESS) in collaboration with the UNDP and supported by the governments of Japan and Norway. This is Nepal’s most substantial implementation on a national scale since the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights were formally endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. This ambitious five-year plan (2024-2028) aims to integrate human rights into Nepal’s economic development strategy, aligning with the UNGP’s 31 principles on governmental and corporate responsibilities to prevent and address business-related human rights concerns and issues. However, while this move is significant, it is essential to specifically address the challenges in the high-altitude mountaineering and adventure tourism sectors, where human rights issues remain a pressing concern. Looking forward, it is essential for Nepali businesses to implement human rights standards with active collaboration between the government and civil society.

BHR safety risk

Business and Human Rights (BHR) issues in Nepal are deeply entrenched in industries like adventure tourism, where structural inequalities and weak regulatory frameworks often expose vulnerable local populations on potential risks of human rights issues. The high-altitude mountaineering sector, for instance, showcases stark examples of these challenges. Indigenous Nepali workers, including guides and porters, form the backbone of this industry, yet they are disproportionately subjected to challenging working conditions, low wages and limited access to safety measures on training or equipment. Nearly half of all fatalities on Sagarmatha have been Nepali workers, highlighting the life-threatening risks they endure while facilitating the ambitions of international climbers. These figures fail to capture the many more who suffer life-long injuries, frostbite or post-traumatic stress from their work.

Those identified potential risks of these workers are compounded by cross-border employment practices, where international Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) often operate through local tour operators, distancing themselves from direct accountability for workers’ rights. This disconnect not only allows the perpetuation of unfair labor practices but also undermines the development of systemic solutions, such as robust safety standards and equitable profit-sharing mechanisms. Inadequate governmental oversight exacerbates this issue, leaving workers vulnerable to risks would not only enhance the sustainability of the world-renowned Nepali tourism sectors but also affirm the fundamental rights of Nepali workers, fostering greater equity and resilience in the industry.

National action plan

Nepali stakeholders, including civil society organizations (CSOs), business groups, academics and the media, are advocating for a participatory, transparent and accountable approach to the National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights (BHR). Their key recommendations include:

• Inclusive process: Involve diverse groups, particularly those directly affected, and adopt the UN’s 15-step model developed by the UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights (UNWG).
• Transparency and accessibility: Ensure draft documents from agencies and businesses are made publicly available, offer platforms for feedback, and provide accessible mechanisms for redress.
• Alignment with international standards: National laws should align with international human rights norms, focusing on labor, indigenous, and gender rights.
• Integration with global frameworks: Ensure that the recently adopted NAP aligns with global initiatives, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change at a local level.
• Effective monitoring system: Develop a targeted implementation plan and system focused on mountaineering and adventure tourism, incorporating periodic reviews led by the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security (MoLESS). Ensure the active participation of industry representatives, civil society organizations, local guides’ union and affected communities, in the planning and evaluation process.

Lessons from global practices

Many Western countries are pushing for stronger measures to tackle modern slavery and improve business practices. Global pressure from investors and new regulatory frameworks are encouraging stricter human rights standards, including mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD). This year, the European Union introduced a directive requiring large companies to address human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and supply chains. It includes mandates for due diligence policies, risk assessments and climate transition plans, with penalties like hefty fines and civil liability for non-compliance. These developments are expected to inspire similar measures in other regions.

In contrast, Nepal faces hurdles in implementing binding regulations for human rights in tourism supply chains. Current strategies emphasize voluntary guidelines over mandatory requirements, which may encourage some businesses to adopt human rights disclosures. However, the non-binding nature of these measures risks inconsistent implementation by businesses, potentially limiting their impact on ensuring widespread adherence to human rights standards in business practices.

Way forward 

Nepal’s adoption of a NAP on BHR marks a vital step in promoting human rights in business practices. To advance further, Nepal should draw lessons from global efforts transitioning from soft law guidelines to mandatory, state-enforced Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) laws. Binding regulations that require companies to address human rights risks are too early to judge whether they are effective in driving accountability and systemic change, however, it is important for the government to take an active role in promoting businesses to respect BHR according to global UNGP standards. Instead of merely adopting Western-centric models, Nepal can tailor these approaches to its unique context, starting with a sector-specific focus.

Proper enforcement of Nepal’s NAP on BHR within mountaineering and tourism is essential. Effective implementation of NAP in these areas would ensure critical safeguards such as fair wages, safety training and equitable working conditions. However, a practical strategy could possibly involve piloting binding human rights laws in key industries like mountaineering and tourism, where vulnerable workers face some of the most severe risks. This pilot approach would allow Nepal to enforce critical safeguards, such as fair wages, safety training and equitable working conditions, while gradually building the capacity for broader implementation. By leading with tourism—a sector central to its economy and global identity—Nepal can demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights while fostering sustainable business practices. This targeted enforcement would serve as a model for extending binding BHR regulations to other sectors in the future.

Shining a spotlight on the Business and Human Rights (BHR) aspects of Nepal’s iconic mountaineering and trekking industry, while addressing the different issues of indigenous workers, is crucial. This approach emphasizes Nepal’s commitment to BHR as an essential framework for achieving the SDGs, promoting UN charters and ensuring better livelihoods for the backbone of its mountaineering sector.

“Shall We All Commit Suicide?” Sir Winston S Churchill ominously warned in his 1924 essay about the alarming progress of biological warfare (BW), where engineered diseases could target humans, animals and agriculture. He wrote, “A study of Disease—of Pestilences, methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast—is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more than one great country. Blight to destroy crops, Anthrax to slay horses and cattle, Plague to poison not armies only but whole districts—such are the lines along which military science is remorselessly advancing.” A century ago, Churchill predicted the risks of bioterrorism, foreseeing military strategies using engineered bioweapons that could devastate humanity and ecosystems.

In an op-ed for Business Insider in 2017, Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates warned “Infectious virus is a greater risk to humanity than nuclear war. Whether such an outbreak occurs due to a quirk of nature or is deliberately released by a terrorist, epidemiologists say a fast-moving airborne pathogen could kill more than 30m people in less than a year.” Gates emphasized the cataclysmic gravity of BW agents, indicating bioterrorism—the deliberate release of natural or engineered biological agents to harm humans, animals, or environments for terrorist purposes—could become one of humanity’s greatest perils.

Historical perspective

BW dates back to the 6th century BCE when the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with ergot fungus, causing delusions, cardiovascular issues and death, and has since been a strategic tool in military conflicts. In the 4th century BCE, Scythian archers dipped arrows in animal feces to induce infections, while in 204 BCE, Hannibal used venomous snake-filled clay pots against Pergamene ships. In 1346, the Tatars catapulted plague-infected corpses into Kaffa, contributing to Black Death’s spread across Europe, which killed up to 200m people in the 14th century alone, wiping out nearly half of Europe's population.

During the 16th century, Spanish conquistadors used smallpox-infected blankets to devastate indigenous South American populations. The industrial revolution advanced microbiology, inadvertently enabling the weaponization of pathogens. During World War I, Germany allegedly infected enemy livestock with anthrax.

During World War II, Japan’s Units 731 and 100 weaponized pathogens like B anthrax, Yersinia pestis, V cholera and Shigella in ceramic bombs, dispersing them over Chinese cities via aerosols and testing them on prisoners, causing epidemics and an estimated 10,000 prisoners’ deaths.

The Cold War saw further advancements, with the United States and the Soviet Union developing extensive bioweapons programs.

Despite the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention banning bioweapon development, production, and storage, signed by most UN countries, the enduring threat of bioterrorism remains alarming.

Modern bioterrorism

In 1984, the Rajneeshee sect conducted the first known US bioterror attack, contaminating salad bars in The Dalles, Oregon, with Salmonella typhimurium, infecting 751 and hospitalizing 45.

The 2001 US anthrax attacks, where letters containing B anthracis spores were mailed to media and government offices, caused 22 infections, five fatalities and required 30,000 people to undergo antibiotic treatment. The attack fueled widespread fear, prompted biosecurity policy reforms and incurred over $1bn in response costs, highlighting bioterrorism’s social, economic and global security impact.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies biological agents into three categories A, B, and C based on their threat level to public health and national security. Category A agents represent the highest threat due to their high transmissibility, mortality and societal impact, include B. anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Y. pestis, botulinum toxin, smallpox and hemorrhagic fever viruses (Ebola, Marburg).

Category B agents pose a moderate threat, with lower mortality but significant health implications, requiring enhanced diagnostic and surveillance, include Brucella, Clostridium epsilon toxin, Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Shigella, Ricin toxin and V cholera.

Viruses are now considered the greatest biothreat in the EU’s expanded list including emerging and re-emerging pathogens—SARS, MERS, WestNile, Mpox and influenza A (H5, H7).

Advancements in biotechnology, CRISPR gene editing and gain-of-function research have reduced barriers to developing bioweapons, raising concerns about non-state actors misusing engineered pathogens or chimera with enhanced virulence or drug resistance. Unlike conventional weapons, BW agents remain silent, invisible and capable of widespread devastation, underscoring the urgency for global biodefense measures.

Biodefense

Biosecurity measures are vital for protecting biological research and mitigating bioterrorism risks. Early detection remains a challenge, as pathogens can spread undetected before symptoms manifest, complicating containment efforts. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed critical gaps in global biodefense, emphasizing the necessity for enhanced surveillance, rapid-response systems and international cooperation. A 2021 Lancet article by Long and Marzi reveals the global biodefense market at $12.2bn in 2019, projected to reach $19.8bn by 2027, growing at a 5.8 percent annual rate.

Strict biosecurity protocols regulate pathogen access, laboratory safety and dual-use research, but inconsistent enforcement and weak compliance mechanisms in many nations create vulnerabilities that could be exploited. A unified global biosecurity framework is essential to ensure scientific advancements benefit humanity, not destruction.

The Biological Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons, yet its enforcement remains inadequate.

Geopolitical tensions complicate biosecurity by fueling mistrust and obstructing global cooperation. Scientific and political debates over SARS-CoV-2’s origins underscore concerns about laboratory safety and accidental pathogen leaks, and the need for stringent oversight in high-containment laboratories.

Safeguarding public health, Nepal’s three-tier health system must enhance surveillance, regulate biotechnology and enforce ethical research standards. Additionally, the Nepali Army and security agencies should develop robust capabilities to detect, prevent and respond to potential bioterrorism threats or bioweapons. This requires coordinated efforts in intelligence gathering, rapid response mechanisms and cross-sectoral collaboration to mitigate hazards and ensure national biosecurity.

Lessons from past pandemics and bioterrorism incidents must inform future biodefense strategies. As Churchill and Gates forewarned, bioterrorism remains an alarming threat. A failure to act now could lead to consequences far more catastrophic than any seen before.