The National Human Rights Commission was busy lobbying the political leadership to revise its Act when its global ‘A’ grade was at risk.

Its leadership believed a change in line with the Paris Principles would strengthen the commission’s position before the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), which was reviewing the status.

In August last year, the commission consulted cross-party lawmakers and urged them to press the government to present a bill to amend the Act or a new bill to replace the existing Act in Parliament. They had claimed that doing so would bolster the commission’s attempts to retain its ‘A’ status.

However, when GANHRI decided not to downgrade the commission in October, its leadership slowed down its legislative efforts.

Under the commission’s initiative, a five-member panel led by Tika Ram Pokharel, joint secretary at the constitutional human rights watchdog, was formed to draft a new bill. Raju Prasad Guragai, under-secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Tika Ram Bhushal from the Finance Ministry, Subash Kumar Bhattarai from the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and Jhankar Bahadur Rawal from the commission were the committee members.

After three months of study, the committee submitted the draft bill to the commission in February. However, five months have passed since, and the commission has yet to forward it to the government. The National Human Rights Commission Act, which came into effect in 2011, needs revision or replacement with a new Act in line with the Constitution of Nepal, which came into force in 2015.

“We repeatedly urged the commission to forward the draft. We want to register it in Parliament after completing due process,” a top official at the Prime Minister’s Office told the Post. “The commission has shown no interest.”

The Prime Minister’s Office will formalise the bill after receiving it from the commission. It then goes through review by the law and finance ministries for their approval. After receiving the clearance, it needs to be endorsed by the Cabinet before being registered in Parliament.

Commission officials said the leadership’s reluctance is delaying the process of drafting a new law. “There is no reason to withhold the draft for five months. This shows the working style of our leadership,” said a senior official at the commission. He said if the leadership had been proactive, the bill could have been forwarded to the government within a few weeks after receiving the draft.

The commission’s leadership claims to be actively working to finalise the draft. “We are consulting a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the draft is comprehensive,” Surya Dhungel, a commissioner, told the Post. “The commission is conscious that the new Act must adhere closely with the Paris Principles even as it takes some time for finalisation. We still want it to be presented in the ongoing session of Parliament.”

On several occasions, GANHRI has said the existing Act of the commission needs to be revised to ensure its autonomy, not just in investigation but also in budget management as per the Paris Principles.

Adopted in 1993 by the United Nations General Assembly, the Paris Principles set six criteria that national human rights institutions need to meet. These include autonomy from the government, independence as guaranteed by the constitution, adequate competence, pluralism, and the availability of resources and powers to carry out investigations.

Earlier, the then KP Sharma Oli government had registered an amendment bill in the House in 2019, but it could not get through after serious objection from the commission. The rights watchdog was dissatisfied with a clause that would give the Attorney General’s Office discretionary powers to advance the cases recommended by the commission. The bill also didn’t include provisions for the commission’s financial autonomy.

The bill was never tabled for endorsement.