Nepal’s peace process: Transitional justice as the final step

Nepal’s peace process stands as a unique example of a home-grown approach to resolving conflict. The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), signed in 2006 between the Seven-Party Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), laid the foundation for transformative political and social changes. It resulted in the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015 through the Constituent Assembly and the successful integration of the Maoist army into national forces. However, one critical component—transitional justice—remains unresolved, even 18 years after the CPA. Addressing this issue is vital to concluding Nepal’s peace process and ensuring justice for victims.

In 2015, Nepal established two commissions: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). These commissions were tasked with investigating human rights violations, disappearances and atrocities committed during Nepal’s decade-long armed conflict. However, operational inefficiencies, lack of resources, and political interference hindered their work. In 2024, the government renewed the process by forming a five-member search committee under former Chief Justice Om Prakash Mishra to nominate officials for both commissions. This committee, which also includes former Supreme Court judge Jagadish Sharma Poudel, former ambassador Arjun Karki, human rights activist Stella Tamang, and a representative of the National Human Rights Commission, has raised hopes for revitalizing the commissions with competent and independent leadership.

While this development has been cautiously welcomed by organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Accountability Watch Committee (AWC), concerns remain. The groups stress that transitional justice must address five key pillars: truth, justice, reparation, memorialization and guarantees of non-recurrence. They argue that vague language in the law governing the TRC and CIEDP could allow some perpetrators to evade accountability. Crimes are categorized as “violations of human rights”, which may qualify for amnesty, and “serious violations of human rights,” which are prosecutable in a special court. Critics fear that unclear definitions could exclude certain cases from justice and reparations. Additionally, a controversial provision allowing the attorney general to request up to a 75 percent reduction in sentencing for serious human rights violations—excluding rape and “serious sexual violence”—has been criticized as a disguised amnesty. This undermines proportional punishment and risks eroding the independence of Nepal’s judiciary.

Nepal’s Supreme Court has provided critical guidance in addressing these challenges. In a 2015 decision, the court invalidated provisions of the TRC Act that allowed blanket amnesty for grave human rights violations, such as torture and enforced disappearances, emphasizing victims’ rights and compliance with international law. Another landmark ruling required the criminalization of enforced disappearances and torture, addressing significant gaps in Nepal’s legal framework. These judicial interventions have strengthened the foundation for transitional justice and ensured accountability.

Global lessons

Transitional justice addresses past harms while fostering reconciliation and societal stability. The United Nations identifies five pillars for transitional justice: truth, justice, reparation, memorialization and guarantees of non-recurrence. Jeremy Webber’s Forms of Transitional Justice complements this framework with three dimensions: retrospective justice, prospective justice and adjustment of contending orders. Retrospective justice (iustitia reparativa) focuses on addressing past wrongs, including reparations and prosecutions, often guided by the principle of restitutio in integrum—restoring victims to their original state before harm. Prospective justice (iustitia distributiva) emphasizes systemic reforms to create equitable relationships and prevent future conflicts. Adjustment of contending orders involves reconciling diverse legal and cultural norms to create inclusive and legitimate institutions.

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995, is a widely regarded model of restorative justice. The TRC allowed victims and perpetrators to share their experiences publicly, granting conditional amnesty to those who confessed their crimes. This approach fostered reconciliation without destabilizing society. Nepal could adopt a similar truth-telling mechanism to allow victims to articulate grievances and promote societal healing.

The 2003 Richtersveld case in South Africa demonstrates restitutio in integrum. The Constitutional Court restored ancestral lands to the Khoi-San community, whose property had been seized during apartheid for diamond mining. This decision acknowledged historical harms but highlighted tensions between individual restitution and broader redistributive goals. Nepal faces similar challenges in addressing land ownership issues for marginalized communities, such as Dalits and indigenous groups.

Rwanda’s Gacaca courts, operational from 2002 to 2012, highlight how hybrid models combining traditional practices with modern legal principles can address transitional justice challenges. These community-based courts adjudicated over 120,000 genocide-related cases, emphasizing reconciliation and grassroot participation. Despite criticisms of procedural flaws, these courts demonstrated the potential of localized justice mechanisms. Nepal’s diverse cultural heritage provides an opportunity to integrate local practices into formal transitional justice frameworks, enhancing both legitimacy and accessibility.

Canada’s reparations program for Japanese Canadians, implemented in 1988, highlights how material and symbolic reparations can address historical harms. Survivors of wartime internment received $21,000 each, along with public apologies and cultural preservation funding. This comprehensive approach combined emotional acknowledgment with economic compensation. Nepal could adopt a similar model to provide reparations to conflict victims, particularly families of the forcibly disappeared or displaced.

Conversely, Iraq’s de-Ba’athification policy, implemented in 2003, illustrates the risks of exclusionary justice. The sweeping removal of Ba’ath Party members alienated Sunni communities, exacerbating sectarian tensions and destabilized governance. Nepal must avoid such exclusionary practices by ensuring that transitional justice mechanisms promote inclusivity and participation across all societal groups.

Moving forward

Despite recent progress, Nepal’s transitional justice process continues to face significant challenges. Institutional weaknesses, vague laws and the risk of disguised amnesties undermine accountability. Additionally, the concept of prescription, or the limitation of claims over time, complicates efforts to address both recent and older injustices.

Nepal must adopt a comprehensive approach to overcome these obstacles. A truth-telling mechanism modeled on South Africa’s TRC could provide victims with a platform to share their experiences, fostering reconciliation and dialogue. Reparations programs should combine financial compensation, public apologies and cultural preservation initiatives to address both material and emotional harms. Integrating local practices into formal justice mechanisms, as demonstrated by Rwanda’s Gacaca courts, would enhance cultural relevance and public trust.

Strengthening the TRC and CIEDP is essential. Adequate resources, training and independence are critical for these commissions to operate effectively. Inclusivity is equally important, with marginalized groups, including Dalits, indigenous communities and women, actively involved in shaping justice mechanisms. Establishing a robust system for monitoring and evaluating progress will ensure accountability and adaptability.

Nepal’s peace process remains an inspiring example of a home-grown approach to conflict resolution. Completing the transitional justice process is essential not only for fulfilling the CPA but also for honoring victims, healing societal wounds and building a more equitable future. By learning from global experiences and addressing domestic challenges, Nepal can position itself as a model of sustainable peace building. Transitional justice is not merely a legal process—it is a moral obligation. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, and Nepal must act swiftly to ensure this critical step is completed to secure lasting peace and reconciliation.