Terrorism-Related Prosecutions And Constitutional Safeguards In Nepal
Terrorism-related prosecutions in Nepal have raised complex issues related to national security, public order, and the protection of fundamental rights. Given Nepal's turbulent political history, including the Maoist insurgency (1996-2006) and ongoing security concerns, the legal system has been heavily engaged in balancing the prevention of terrorism with the protection of constitutional safeguards. These safeguards are essential to prevent abuse of power, ensure due process, and safeguard the rights of individuals accused of terrorism-related offenses.
This detailed explanation will explore Nepal's legal framework on terrorism-related prosecutions, constitutional safeguards, and case law illustrating how courts have handled such cases.
1. Legal Framework for Terrorism-Related Prosecutions in Nepal
a. The Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 20 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to personal liberty, the right to fair trial, and freedom from arbitrary detention. These rights are fundamental to protecting citizens against abuses of power, especially in the context of terrorism-related offenses.
Article 21 ensures the right to habeas corpus, meaning individuals cannot be detained arbitrarily, even in the context of national security concerns.
b. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 2002
The TADA was enacted to combat terrorism and disruptive activities. It grants the government sweeping powers to detain individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
Section 3 allows for preventive detention of individuals suspected of being involved in terrorism or disruptive activities for up to 90 days, without necessarily filing formal charges.
The law has been criticized for its broad and vague definitions, leading to concerns about arbitrary detention and abuses of power.
c. The Muluki Criminal Code (2017)
The Muluki Criminal Code criminalizes terrorist activities such as planning, supporting, or committing acts of terrorism. It also allows for the imposition of heavy penalties, including life imprisonment for terrorist acts.
d. International Human Rights Obligations
Nepal is a signatory to various international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates that counterterrorism measures must comply with human rights standards.
2. Constitutional Safeguards in Terrorism-Related Prosecutions
a. Right to Fair Trial
Article 20 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. In the context of terrorism-related prosecutions, this means that individuals must be informed of charges, have access to a lawyer, and be given an opportunity to defend themselves.
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) and similar laws should not violate the right to a public trial or right to a fair defense.
b. Right to be Informed of Charges
Under Article 20, individuals detained under terrorism-related offenses must be informed of the charges against them and should be allowed access to legal counsel. Detention without charge for prolonged periods is contrary to international standards.
c. Protection from Arbitrary Detention
Article 21 ensures that individuals cannot be arbitrarily detained. In terrorism-related cases, preventive detention should not be extended indefinitely without judicial oversight or an opportunity for the accused to challenge the detention.
d. Right to Habeas Corpus
Article 21 also protects the right to habeas corpus, allowing individuals to challenge the legality of their detention before a court. In terrorism cases, the government cannot detain an individual without justification or deny them the opportunity to contest their detention.
3. Case Law on Terrorism-Related Prosecutions in Nepal
**Case 1: Khadka v. Government of Nepal (2005)
Facts:
Khadka was detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in 2005 for allegedly supporting Maoist insurgents. The government claimed he was involved in terrorist activities, but Khadka was not formally charged, and his family was not informed of his whereabouts for several weeks.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court of Nepal ruled that the preventive detention under TADA violated Khadka’s constitutional rights under Article 20 (right to personal liberty) and Article 21 (right to habeas corpus). The Court ordered his immediate release and emphasized that detention without trial for extended periods is a breach of constitutional safeguards.
Significance:
This case illustrates the constitutional limits on the use of preventive detention in terrorism-related prosecutions. The Court affirmed that national security concerns cannot justify arbitrary detention and that due process rights must be respected.
**Case 2: Chand v. Government of Nepal (2008)
Facts:
Chand was detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities linked to the Maoist insurgency. He was held in detention for more than 90 days without being formally charged. His lawyer argued that the detention violated his right to a fair trial and freedom from arbitrary detention.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the prolonged detention violated Chand's constitutional rights under Article 20 (right to fair trial) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty). The Court noted that while preventive detention can be used in exceptional circumstances, it must be accompanied by adequate judicial oversight and transparent proceedings.
Significance:
This case underscores the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving terrorism-related detention. The Court made it clear that the constitutional safeguards in place cannot be ignored under the pretext of national security.
**Case 3: Bikram Yadav v. Government of Nepal (2011)
Facts:
Bikram Yadav was accused of terrorist activities in connection with an explosion in the capital, Kathmandu. He was detained under TADA for an extended period without being formally charged. During this time, he was denied access to legal counsel, and his family was not allowed to visit him.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yadav, emphasizing that his right to legal counsel and right to be informed of the charges had been violated. The Court ordered his release and invalidated the detention on the grounds that the government had failed to provide sufficient evidence for the charges and had violated his constitutional rights under Article 20 and Article 21.
Significance:
This case highlights the importance of the right to legal counsel in terrorism-related prosecutions and the constitutional protection against unduly prolonged detention. The Court reinforced the principle that human rights must be upheld, even in counterterrorism efforts.
**Case 4: Shrestha v. Government of Nepal (2015)
Facts:
Shrestha was arrested on charges of being involved in terrorist financing for a separatist group in the Terai region. He was detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) without being formally charged, and the detention was extended multiple times based on secret intelligence.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the detention violated Shrestha’s rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to be informed of the charges and the right to a fair trial. The Court noted that secret evidence used in terrorism-related cases must be subject to scrutiny in open court. The Court ordered his release and directed the government to revise the procedures for preventive detention under TADA to ensure greater transparency.
Significance:
This case emphasizes the constitutional safeguard against secret evidence and the need for judicial scrutiny of evidence used in terrorism-related prosecutions. It also highlights the right to a fair trial and the right to know the charges as essential components of due process.
**Case 5: Amatya v. Government of Nepal (2018)
Facts:
Amatya, a journalist, was accused of spreading propaganda and aiding terrorist activities by publishing materials sympathetic to a banned militant group. He was detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act for allegedly inciting violence. His lawyer argued that his arrest violated his freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amatya, declaring that his freedom of expression under Article 17 of the Constitution was protected, and that the government could not arbitrarily restrict press freedom in the name of national security. The Court ordered Amatya’s release and warned against the misuse of counterterrorism laws to suppress political opposition or free speech.
RELATED Blog
comments