With hardly a month remaining before the terms of the two transitional justice commissions expire, political parties are nowhere close to finalising the bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act.

Cross-party lawmakers from the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House of Representatives didn’t budge from their respective positions on Friday, leaving the committee with no option but to wait for negotiations among the top leaders of the major political parties to settle the matter. Bimala Subedi, chairperson of the committee, said they primarily discussed the four disputed issues that the sub-panel under the House committee failed to resolve, but there was no agreement.

After discussing the bill for over five months, the 11-member sub-panel on October 10 presented the incomplete bill to the committee. They could not arrive at consensus on four issues, with the classification of amnestiable and non-amnestiable crimes remaining a major bone of contention.

Despite prolonged discussions, the sub-committee couldn’t decide whether to categorise arbitrary killings or all killings except those that occurred in clashes as a serious violation of human rights. The committee also could not agree on what happens in case the victims of human rights violations refuse to reconcile. There was also no solution on how to address the concerns of those who were affected by the conflict even though they were not directly involved in it.

Several people have lost their lives and scores of others have been injured in landmines planted during the insurgency, but the transitional justice process has failed to address their cases. Also, cross-party lawmakers could not find consensus on reducing sentencing. Though there is an agreement that the penalty for the perpetrators who cooperate in the investigation can be reduced, they have yet to agree on the extent of reduction.

Though it has been over eight years since the Supreme Court ordered a revision of the Act, it has yet to be amended. The court in 2015 had struck down around a dozen amnesty provisions in the Act, directing the government to amend it in line with international standards and practices. It asked for the categorisation of violence as ‘serious’ and ‘non-serious’ and ‘worthy of amnesty’ and ‘unworthy of amnesty’, depending on their severity. Though the bill has two categories of human rights violations, it has listed murder under non-serious violation.

The lawmakers representing the ruling and opposition parties are sharply divided over the categorisation of crimes. “We have decided to come to an agreement through continuous discussions in the committee,” Subedi told the Post, but did not specify when the next discussion would be held.

Given the uncertainty, the bill is unlikely to be endorsed before the terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons expire next month. The government in July had extended their terms until January 14, 2024. Their terms were expiring on July 17.

The extension was made as per Section 42 of the Act, which authorises the Nepal government to remove difficulties. If the government wants to extend their terms using the provision of ‘removing difficulties’, such a decision needs to be presented in Parliament within 30 days of the decision.

The current bill envisions allowing four years each to the commissions to complete investigation of all cases. While the truth commission has 63,718 complaints registered, there are around 2,400 cases registered with the disappearances commission.

Though legal experts say the authority to remove difficulties is to be used only in rare cases, the government can give an extension to the commissions by again using the same provision.

The statements from the ministers of the Pushpa Kamal Dahal Cabinet also suggest that the bill is not going to be enacted anytime soon.

Taking part in a discussion in the House committee on Friday, Minister for Law and Justice Dhan Raj Gurung said the bill should be finalised by consensus. He said top leaders of major parties have discussed the issues a few times, but there has been no agreement.

“Though the bill falls within this committee’s jurisdiction, maximum efforts should be made to find consensus among the top leadership as transitional justice is a political issue,” he said. “We will think of alternatives [including endorsement through majority] only if a consensus bid fails.”

He, however, didn’t offer a timeframe for when the cross-party leadership could arrive at a resolution.

While the ruling alliance doesn’t want murder to be listed as a serious violation of human rights, the main opposition is in no mood to compromise.

“Transitional justice must be victim-centric. We stand against every provision that in any way favours the perpetrator,” Mahesh Bartaula, the UML whip who is also a member of the House committee, told the Post. “The ball is in the ruling parties’ court. Whether they want justice for the victims or aim to protect the perpetrators will be evident over time.”

Victims of the 1996-2006 Maoist insurgency, human rights activists and national and international human rights organisations have been saying the bill is not in line with the international standards and it cannot deliver justice to the victims, thus needs revision.