The inquiry commission formed to investigate the incidents that occurred during the Gen Z movement on September 8 and 9 has sought to bring the Nepal Army within the scope of its investigation.
The army, however, has refused to send the details requested by the commission and has questioned the commission’s jurisdiction and authority.
The inquiry commission, chaired by former justice Gauri Bahadur Karki, has brought the army under investigation over the question of why it remained a mute spectator even when government institutions such as Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court were set on fire and vandalized on September 9.
Questions have been raised about the army’s credibility for not coming forward to provide protection when violent incidents, including arson and vandalism, took place on the second day of the Gen Z movement.
In particular, questions have arisen as to why the army unit stationed inside Singha Durbar could not prevent the arson as demonstrators set the complex on fire.
The army has already held a press conference and made its position public regarding the matter. However, by refusing to provide the details demanded by the inquiry commission, it appears to signal that it does not consider itself accountable to the commission.
According to sources close to the commission, the army was asked for detailed information, including a list of all personnel, including commanders, who had been deployed in the field that day. The army has not yet sent its response.
When we spoke to army spokesperson Rajaram Basnet, he said that the army had already provided the incident details as requested by the commission.
“The inquiry commission had requested the incident details. We have already submitted the full details,” he said.
When asked why the army did not send the list of deployed personnel, including commanders, Basnet replied, “Coordination on that matter is ongoing. But we have already sent the incident details sought by them.”
By refusing to send the details of the teams including commanders, the Nepal Army has also indicated that if it receives a summons from the commission for testimony, it will not comply.
A high-level source at the Army Headquarters said that if any investigation needs to be conducted on military commanders involved in an incident, the army has its own mechanism to do so, and that those commanders will not go outside the institution to record statements.
“The commission cannot summon our commanders deployed in the field to record statements. The army is an institution that functions through a chain of command. Any investigation will be conducted within the army. Commanders deployed in the field are accountable to their chain of command, not to other bodies,” the officer said. “If necessary, those commanders will be investigated internally under the Military Act, and whatever action needs to be taken will be carried out accordingly.”
Previously, the commission had also requested details from Nepal Police. Like the army, the police had initially not submitted details to the commission.
Responding to this, the commission had accused the police of causing delays in the investigation by failing to provide the requested details on time.
The commission had asked the Nepal Police Headquarters for the details of police personnel deployed in the field that day. When no response was received even after 22 days of sending the letter, the commission asked again. Only then did the police send a response saying “everyone from the IGP to the constables were deployed in the field.”
After receiving such an inadequate response, the commission accused the police of defiance and demanded a written clarification within 24 hours from the then-IGP Chandra Kuber Khapung. The commission intended to fine him Rs 500 under the law if he failed to provide a satisfactory answer.
In his reply, Khapung explained that the delay was due to difficulty in collecting the details, and then submitted the details requested by the commission. The commission then began recording statements from the police personnel deployed in the field and collecting facts about the incidents.
According to commission sources, statements from officials up to the rank of deputy inspector general deployed in the field have been recorded so far. Fact-finding work has also concluded.
Although it had sought clarifications from the police and even intended to fine them, it is still unclear what decision the commission will make regarding the army.
Former prime minister and CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli has also repeatedly said that he will not appear before the commission to record his statement. At a press conference, he declared, “Just because the commission calls, KP Oli will not go running to give a statement.” He even labeled the inquiry commission a “bogus” body.
The UML has warned that if Oli is required to appear before the commission, they will mobilize 100,000 party cadres and surround Singha Durbar.
At a time when Oli is publicly questioning the commission’s legitimacy, the army’s refusal to provide the requested details further increases the likelihood that the commission’s ability to carry out its work will face challenges.
After the destruction on September 9, the army played an important role in rescuing then-prime minister Oli, members of the Cabinet, and top leaders by transporting them to safety using helicopters and vehicles. The army sheltered the leaders for an extended period.
Organizing a press conference, the army released the details of such incidents and also explained why it had not stepped in to protect government institutions that day.
The army said that if it had moved in to protect physical property that day, there would have been far greater human casualties. It claimed that in order to prevent human casualties, it did not protect physical property.
The army claimed that even though it made repeated efforts to disperse the demonstrators, use of force would have caused significant human casualties, and therefore the arson at Singha Durbar became inevitable.
