Special Court former chair Gauri Bahadur Karki-led judicial probe commission set up to investigate the September Gen Z protest, whose report was leaked to the media on Wednesday, appears biased and confused.

Formed on September 21, the commission had the terms of reference (ToR) to investigate both days of the protest—state atrocities on September 8 and arson and vandalism on the following day. The commission has recommended criminal investigation against then-prime minister and the CPN-UML chair KP Sharma Oli, then home minister Ramesh Lekhak, and Chandra Kuber Khapung, the former chief of Nepal Police, for their negligence that led to the deaths of dozens. But it seems to have put little effort into probing those behind the unprecedented destruction the next day.

“The commission has been unable, through its investigation, to collect sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution of individuals involved in the September 9 incidents,” reads the report. It has taken the sheer scale of the events on the second day as a reason for not implicating anyone in connection with the widespread vandalism.

“Owing to the commission’s limited mandate, the entire scope of these incidents was not brought within the ambit of its inquiry,” the report clarifies.

However, even in cases where the commission has recorded statements with clear evidence implicating certain individuals in inciting violence or warranting further investigation, it has taken no initiative in this regard.

Satya Raj Joshi, then jailor at Nakkhu prison, has gone on record saying that he was intimidated into signing a document allowing the release of Rabi Lamichhane, the Rastriya Swatantra Party chair.

“I had no prior knowledge of the contents of that document. As my signatures were obtained under coercion, they are not legally valid. An unavoidable circumstance was created for the signature,” he said. It was after Lamichhane’s release that thousands of prisoners resorted to violence and escaped prison. A number of jailors from different districts have said it was after Lamichhane’s escape that the prisoners under their control started demanding their release.

However, the Karki panel neither conducted a concrete probe to establish whether Joshi’s claim is right nor implicated anyone for the mass prison escapes.

Likewise, the report discusses at length how the Nepali Army was slow to respond from the very first day. On September 8, the army, through the district security committee, was called for assistance at Parliament in New Baneshwar, but it didn't respond immediately. It reached there at only 3 pm. The army claimed that even as one of its squads had left Singha Durbar for Parliament building at 12:45 pm, it could not reach on time as protesters lay down at the wheels of their vehicle.

However, the report notes that even though the protesters had obstructed them, they could have dismounted from the vehicle and proceeded on foot. It says the army left Parliament premises after the BICC building started burning on the afternoon of September 9.

It says the army made little effort to stop the mob from heading mainly towards the Ministry of Home Affairs, even though the route to the ministry passes through an area that houses an army battalion. Even as it points out a pattern of the army’s non-cooperation, it recommends action against only a few army officials under the Military Act, with a chance that they may get away with some departmental actions.

Unlike in the other security agencies, it does not hold the top leadership of the army accountable for its role in the flawed security arrangements.

“The Karki commission report is completely biased,” former deputy inspector general of Nepal Police, Hemanta Malla, told the Post.

Furthermore, the commission has drawn contradictory conclusions on various issues. For instance, its recommendations for the criminal investigation into the political and security leaderships are based on the conclusion that excessive force was used and restraint was lacking.

Yet, in one of the conclusions, the report suggests that the police’s tactical withdrawal on September 9 was improper. The police had adopted a policy of non-retaliation that day.

“Had the police confronted them firmly, the morale of the protesters would have dropped,” it says without assessing whether such a course of action was possible and whether it might have led to further loss of lives.

In another controversial decision, the same individual has been recommended for both reward and disciplinary action. In one instance, the commission recommends that Additional Inspector General of Police Siddhi Bikram Shah be rewarded, stating that the chief of the Operations Department played a leading role in preventing attackers from entering through the main gate and successfully ensured the safety of the Police Headquarters. However, the same report also recommends departmental action against him for failing to properly perform his duties.

For senior advocate Bipin Adhikari, the Karki commission report is more opinionated than objective.

“An objective report would focus on uncovering facts, whereas an opinionated one tends to appeal to emotions rather than clearly inform the public about what actually happened,” he said.

However, Bishweshwar Prasad Bhandari, a senior advocate and member of the probe panel, acknowledged that they themselves have accepted that the report has focused more on September 8 due to time constraints.

“It would not have been possible to submit the report within the stipulated time had we also delved deeper into September 9 events,” Bhandari told the Post. “The ambit of the event was so large that we would have needed a few years to incorporate all the details of September 9.”

Malla doesn’t agree. He says that if a commission is given a clear mandate to conduct a judicial investigation into a specific incident, it cannot justify conducting a detailed study on one day while neglecting another due to a lack of time. “This cannot be an excuse,” said Malla.

Talking to the Post, Bhandari cited ambiguity in the law as the reason for their failure to recommend action in several instances. He said agencies have overlapping jurisdictions, the Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and Nepali Army have clear command structures and, moreover, even several laws are outdated.

Malla says that the decision to recommend action against the police chief but not the army chief may have been due to the police being responsible for broader public security. “But that doesn’t give authority for punitive actions,” he says. Claiming the report is incomplete, he suggests forming a separate investigative committee to get a fuller picture.

The commission, which cited a lack of time for submitting a complete report, has nevertheless offered extensive recommendations on reforms in sectors ranging from journalism and the postal service to broader institutional changes. The report even suggests qualifications for journalists and prescribes how lawyers should function. Its attempt to stretch its mandate into other sectors while falling short of its core task has already sparked controversy.

Taking serious exception, the Nepal Bar Association said the report has attacked the values and principles of an independent judiciary and cast aspersions on legal professionals. The association has decided to submit recommendations to the Supreme Court of Nepal and has also formed a separate committee to conduct a detailed study of the report.