Region 
 

Kathmandu

Murdering with Impunity

In Nepal, the recent case of Resham Chaudhary illustrates the dangers of presidential amnesty, including the risk of impunity, the weakening of the rule of law, and the criminalisation of politics.

By Gulnaz Nawaz | August 2023

The idea of a presidential amnesty has been the subject of fervent debate, especially in nations transitioning out of conflict or experiencing political instability. As Nepal continues to recover from a decade of civil unrest and work toward stable governance, the president of Nepal has announced an amnesty to address historical human rights violations.

Many believe amnesty strengthens the rule of law and promotes criminal behaviour, while others believe it helps bring people together and sustain peace. The impact of amnesty on justice and accountability in Nepal has been brought up again in light of the recent case of former MP Resham Chaudhary.

Despite being the “mastermind” of the 2015 Tikapur massacre, the president granted Chaudhary amnesty. With the president’s pardon of a mass murderer, concerns have been raised about the influence of politics on the legal system. Some have hypothesised that Chaudhary was given amnesty because of his ties to the ruling coalition and, more particularly, because his party backed Poudel for president. This creates issues concerning the politics of crime since it makes people nervous that criminals would try to escape their crimes by allying themselves with powerful politicians.

Those found guilty of murder should not be offered amnesty because it undermines justice and accountability. Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not allow for the commutation, suspension, modification, or reduction of sentences for heinous offences like murder.

The significance of the president of Nepal’s amnesty can only be appreciated in light of its historical context. The government and Maoist guerrillas fought it out for years (1996–2006), and both sides committed human rights violations. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2006 aimed, among other things, to facilitate a conflict-free transition to democracy. This agreement led to the formation of many human rights groups, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP).

Those who advocate for a presidential amnesty argue it is necessary for national unity and stability. They argue that granting ex-combatants amnesty would help them readjust to civilian life and become productive members of society who would help advance the country.

One strategy for getting abusers to talk is to offer them amnesty in exchange for information about their victims. Those who advocate for this approach argue it’s crucial for understanding what’s really at the heart of the issue. Supporters of presidential amnesty further argue that it deters former fighters from taking violent retribution. Governments that grant amnesty show they are serious about moving on, ending threats of retaliation, and encouraging a culture of forgiveness. Furthermore, they say the judicial system’s limited resources are best used to address ongoing human rights breaches and guarantee efficient operation.

Presidential amnesty has been criticised because it fosters a culture of impunity and weakens the rule of law. They contend that amnesty compromises victims’ rights to the truth, justice, and restitution. Governments that provide amnesty to those who have committed serious human rights violations contribute to a culture of impunity and perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence. Others worry that amnesty will make building lasting peace in the region more difficult. Allowing wrongdoers to avoid punishment leaves unresolved complaints, which may stoke tensions and even spark new confrontations.

Moreover, amnesty may encourage a culture of silence, which is harmful since it prevents victims from coming forward and slows down the healing and reconciliation process. There are also questions regarding the amnesty process’s accountability and openness. Amnesty has been used as a political tactic in the past, usually to shield powerful people or hide wrongdoing by the state. This kind of selective application harms the credibility of the amnesty process and the integrity of the legal system.


Finding a balance between reparation and revenge is a daunting challenge for any community recovering from violence. Presidential amnesty may help bring people together again, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of doing what’s right. Amnesty alone isn’t enough; transitional justice procedures like truth-telling, restitution, and institutional changes must also be included. This mixed approach has the potential to foster healing and reconciliation without sacrificing the pursuit of justice. The pardon given to Chaudhary lends credence to the idea that criminals may hide out under the protection of political groups. As a result, criminals may feel encouraged to cultivate relationships with powerful people to avoid punishment for their illicit acts. If amnesty continues to be given solely for political influence, it will eventually feed impunity and erode the integrity of the legal system.

There is still much disagreement and controversy around using presidential amnesty in Nepal.

The recent case of Resham Chaudhary illustrates the dangers of presidential amnesty in Nepal, including the risk of impunity, the weakening of the rule of law, and the criminalisation of politics. Amnesty for violent offenders undermines victim rights, accountability, and the rule of law. Nepal needs to weigh the pros and cons of a presidential amnesty and find a middle ground between peacemaking and punishing wrongdoers. Restoring public faith in the judicial system and preventing the pervasiveness of impunity requires transparent and accountable decision-making procedures.

There is still much disagreement and controversy around using presidential amnesty in Nepal. Supporters say it helps provide peace and stability, while others point out it may also encourage lawlessness. Striking a balance between reconciliation and justice is vital for Nepal’s long-term peace and development. The government should watch out that amnesty isn’t abused to protect powerful people or to keep a culture of impunity alive and well. It should be conducted as part of a larger transitional justice process to ensure truth, justice, restitution, and institutional improvements.

Nepal must address the legitimate concerns of victims and cultivate a culture of accountability to take genuine strides towards reconciliation and establish a fair and peaceful society. Healing, justice, and a peaceful future for Nepal may be established through listening to victims of conflict, compensating them for their losses, holding those responsible for the violence accountable, and having open and honest conversations with them.

For peace and justice to prevail, the government must prioritise victims’ needs, establish robust transitional justice structures, and promote a widespread acceptance of personal accountability. A more just, peaceful, and equitable society in Nepal is within reach with the help of these initiatives.

Read More