Nepal’s transitional justice process, initiated to bring accountability and healing after a decade-long civil conflict, is now widely viewed by its citizens, especially the victims, as deeply flawed and ineffective. Over a decade after the Comprehensive Peace Accord was signed in 2006, which marked the end of the Maoist insurgency, the promise of justice remains largely unfulfilled. The transitional justice process has symbolized political stagnation rather than national reconciliation.
Growing Dissatisfaction and Eroding Trust
Among the most affected are the families of victims and survivors of conflict-era abuses. Their widespread dissatisfaction stems from a process they see as politicized, sluggish, and largely disconnected from the people it is meant to serve. A Justice Info report underscores that many victims view the process as a disgrace, manipulated by power players instead of being a platform for genuine accountability.
Even though over 60,000 complaints have been lodged with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), little progress has been made in terms of investigations or reparations. This failure to address grievances has intensified victims’ mistrust toward state institutions and democratic processes.
For a more contextual backdrop of citizen dissatisfaction in democratic structures, read “The Alarming Decline of Democracy in Nepal” on The Informed Gazette.
Exclusion of Victim Voices
One of the most consistent criticisms from victims and civil society is the lack of a victim-centered approach. Many feel excluded from both the design and execution of the transitional justice framework. As Peace Insight points out, victims’ participation is often tokenistic, meant to show inclusion without granting any real decision-making power.
Local peace committees and victim-led organizations have attempted to engage with the process, but the impact remains minimal. True transitional justice demands more than symbolic inclusion—it requires that victims have actual influence over outcomes that affect their lives and dignity.
Political Interference and Instrumentalization
There is growing concern that the transitional justice process has been instrumentalized by political actors. Many observers argue that political parties have used the commissions as tools to protect their own from prosecution or public scrutiny. This perception further discredits the process, eroding hopes for impartial justice.
An article by the Australian Association of Asian Studies notes that leaders from both the Maoist and state sides of the conflict have shown little willingness to confront past abuses or recognize the full extent of civilian suffering. This silence has left victims feeling invisible and betrayed.
You can find a relevant and powerful reflection in The Informed Gazette’s article “Why Victims Still Wait: The Long Road to Transitional Justice in Nepal”.
Trust in Institutions at an All-Time Low
The trust deficit in Nepal’s transitional justice mechanisms reflects a broader issue with institutional credibility. Many citizens doubt that the TRC and CIEDP will produce any meaningful outcomes, a sentiment echoed in a report by USIP. Repeated extensions of commission mandates without substantial progress have further diminished confidence.
The growing skepticism is not limited to victims. Civil society and international human rights organizations have also voiced strong criticisms, pushing for reforms that align with international standards and truly center on victims’ needs and rights.
Enduring Hope Amidst Delays
Despite the disillusionment, the sheer volume of cases submitted to the commissions is a testament to the resilience and hope of Nepalese citizens. Victims continue to demand justice, not only for themselves but to strengthen the rule of law and ensure non-repetition of such violations.
While delays have dimmed expectations, the desire for justice remains alive. For many, a credible and inclusive transitional justice process is not just about the past—it is about safeguarding Nepal’s democratic future.
The Informed Gazette also explores this perspective in “Nepal’s Victims Speak Out: Justice as a Path to Peace”.
Conclusion
Nepal’s transitional justice process is at a critical crossroads. The discontent and distrust voiced by victims reflect deeper structural and political failures that must be urgently addressed. A shift toward a victim-centric, transparent, and accountable framework is essential—not just for those directly affected by conflict, but for the health of the nation’s democracy and its commitment to human rights. Only then can Nepal begin to truly reconcile with its past and build a just and inclusive future.
For more interesting articles, click here.
