In August this year, the three major parties—the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Centre)—joined hands to pass the long-stuck bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act-2014. Their action was widely hailed as a big milestone in Nepal’s transitional justice process. But now, when time has come to pick the candidates for the two important transitional justice bodies—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP)—which have been without office-bearers since 2022, the parties are faltering. The names shortlisted as potential office-bearers of these commissions have sparked controversy, with conflict victims accusing the parties of overlooking their concerns.

These commissions’ role in concluding Nepal’s peace process is pivotal. The CIEDP was formed to find the whereabouts of the disappeared persons, recommend reparation to victims and prosecute the accused related to the armed conflict. Similarly, the TRC is there to investigate serious human rights violations, identify those involved and recommend reparative and legal measures. It also envisioned reconciliation, mutual goodwill and peace between perpetrators and victims. Yet, they have fallen woefully short of the expectations of both victims and rights activists. Due to a lack of competence and constant political meddling, they haven’t progressed beyond collecting complaints and conducting initial investigations in a handful of cases.

This is the third time the government is appointing officials to these commissions. Still, past mistakes in the selection of office-bearers are being repeated, as a recommendation committee has been formed under the leadership of a person who botched the same job in 2020. The chairpersons and members of the two commissions nominated under him had failed to perform their duties. The names shortlisted this time have also disappointed rights activists and victims alike. Despite their repeated calls to select the commissions’ leaderships through a consultative, transparent and inclusive process, their concerns went unheeded. The list, in the eyes of rights activists and victims, prioritises controversial figures over competent and deserving ones.

This leaves one wondering if the parties had a hidden agenda behind the August agreement, as it seems partisan interests have again prevailed over national healing. The politicisation and manipulation of these commissions’ selection processes will not ensure justice for the victims of the insurgency. When the parties united to conclude the process back in August, the international community had immediately welcomed the move, but the new controversy over the shortlisted names again risks discrediting the whole process, both at home and abroad. What’s more concerning is that the National Human Rights Commission, which should have acted as a watchdog in the process, is silent, perhaps because one NHRC commissioner is a member of the recommendation panel. The rights watchdog’s complicity will further erode its public trust.

Justice delayed has already become justice denied for many conflict victims. For the transitional justice process to come to a successful end, top political leaders and parties must rise above petty interests and acknowledge long-term damage their misjudgement can inflict on the conflict victims who have now waited for justice for nearly two decades since the guns fell silent in 2006. If these commissions again fail in their responsibilities, it will be seen as a sign of the failure of the democratic process in the country. Nepal needs competent people in the two commissions, those with unwavering integrity and commitment to justice. We have ample evidence now that compromised transitional justice bodies cannot work in the interest of victims.