In Conversation with Mandira Sharma
her WORK as a lawyer and human rights defender for justice in nepal
Interviewed by Lorna Ní Shúilleabháin
Dr. Mandira Sharma is a prominent lawyer, woman human rights defender, and co-founder of Nepal’s trailblazing organisation, Advocacy Forum. She is also currently the Senior International Legal Adviser at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).
Mandira’s last visit to the UK was in 2022, when she was working on gaining international support for reforms to the Transitional Justice Bill - you can read our previous interview with Mandira here.
This time, she was visiting for the launch of the Independent Delegation of International Lawyers to Nepal’s report: ‘Peace without Justice and Accountability? A caution against impunity in post-conflict Nepal’—an event that shed light on the recently passed Transitional Justice Law in Nepal.
Mandira speaking to parliamentarians during her visit to the UK
1. Can you start by introducing yourself, your work, and why you’re here today?
My name is Mandira Sharma and I am from Nepal. I am a lawyer and human rights defender, currently working at the International Commissions of Jurists as the Senior International Legal Adviser. I am also one of the co-founders of Advocacy Forum, one of the leading human rights organisations in Nepal. I am here today on the invitation of PBI, one of the organisations I have been collaborating with for several years now, in light of a report being released by an independent legal delegation to Nepal on the transitional justice law and the challenges that victims of serious human rights violations in Nepal face.
2. Your last visit to the UK was in 2022. What has changed since then?
At that time we were advocating for international support to put pressure on the Nepalese government to amend the law to establish transitional justice mechanisms. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nepal had ordered the government of Nepal to amend the law providing a legal framework for Transitional Justice (TJ) but that order of the Supreme Court was not respected and the law was still to be amended. The absence of a law had hampered the establishment of TJ mechanisms and victims had no access to truth, reparation and justice.
We were advocating for the legal framework as required by the Supreme Court of Nepal, but what has changed now is that the law has been amended, which is good news. The law now incorporates some of the recommendations, issues, and demands that we and victims had raised in the last several years which were also included in the Supreme Court’s decision.
Having said that, there are still issues with the existing Act because it does not incorporate all the recommendations we previously made, such as ensuring the Act is compatible with international obligations and the Supreme Court's decision. Hopefully, this time we can mobilise international support to refine the problematic provisions in the Act, or at least ensure that the international community engages with the process in a way that does not undermine international law.
3. What is needed to address the shortfalls in access to justice for victims of the conflict?
Firstly, there are problems at different levels in ensuring access to justice for victims. One important issue is the legal framework. This new transitional justice law provides some sort of framework, but the application of the law remains to be seen. We have laws in Nepal that have not been implemented, even the constitutional provisions. Therefore, we hope that the international community will help us implement this law.
Secondly, implementation of this law also requires various different technical inputs and support. For example, we are going to establish a special court to try those people involved in serious human rights violations; but Nepal does not have any experience in trying any of these kinds of cases and people involved in serious human rights crimes. Our investigators in Nepal have not previously conducted investigations on these kinds of cases, so they may lack the capacity to deal with, investigate, and try these cases. Therefore, they need technical support to help implement this law. How we ensure the independence of investigations and get investigators capable of collecting evidence in such cases is another issue.
This law also provides reparations as a right of victims. But how do you develop reparation programmes? Victims have varying needs according to the nature of the violations they have suffered and their context. It is crucial to consider intersectionality when designing reparation programmes, as the needs of female survivors could be different from others. Ensuring the participation of victims in designing reparation programmes, that have longer-term impacts, examining their experiences, and learning from the lessons of other countries that have been through this process are all very useful for us.
Ensuring access to justice encompasses several aspects, including legal frameworks, each of which presents its own challenges. Implementing this law requires various enabling mechanisms and technical input.
Institutional reform is also necessary because the current system of impunity has emboldened many perpetrators to control state machinery. It is crucial to ensure that those with vested interests are not involved in the investigations, decision-making processes, or any stages of the transitional justice (TJ) process.
Lastly, the security of victims and human rights defenders engaging in this process is another issue we are grappling with. We anticipate more concerns arising once the process begins. In the past, when some victims tried to file their petitions to the transitional justice mechanisms disclosing the name of alleged perpetrators, the information they provided was leaked to perpetrators. Consequently, they were threatened and harassed by the perpetrators. Human rights organisations that have been focusing on the issue of impunity are targeted in various ways. These issues will further resurface, affecting lawyers, human rights defenders, survivors, and people who provided evidence of past violations. Addressing their security is crucial while ensuring access to justice for survivors. These are some of the areas where we need to generate international scrutiny so the TJ process is not controlled by those having interest to avoid justice and accountability in the country.
“The international community, particularly the UK, with its strong foundation of rule of law and history of championing it, should focus on how this process can strengthen the rule of law in Nepal. ”
Mandira speaking during the launch of the fact-finding report ‘Peace without Justice and Accountability? A caution against impunity in post-conflict Nepal’ in London
4. What role can the international community, including the UK, play in supporting your work and that of other human rights defenders in Nepal?
As I briefly highlighted, the security of victims and human rights defenders will be a concern once the process starts. This process requires funding for the implementation of the law, which includes setting up a transitional justice fund. This fund will need contributions from both the international community and the Nepalese government. Some countries are already pleading for support for this fund. We hope that the UK and other governments that support this new law will also join this initiative.
However, we want the UK and the wider international community to ensure that support and funding are not used solely for certain aspects of transitional justice at the expense of others. Currently, there is a significant push to compel victims to accept reparation, instead of their demand for justice. The prevailing narrative from political parties and some victims close to these parties is that reparations are crucial for them, and justice is too difficult to pursue and victims should not jeopardise their chances of obtaining reparations by emphasising the need for justice.
However, it is not a choice between reparation and justice; victims have the right to both reparation and justice, as well as the truth. This needs to be approached holistically, and it also involves the obligation to take measures to ensure these atrocities are not repeated in the future. Preventative measures must be implemented to prevent future violations.
All components of transitional justice need to be supported equally. Therefore, if the transitional justice fund is intended for the entire process, it must be distributed equally across all components to achieve all the objectives of transitional justice.
The international community, particularly the UK, with its strong foundation of rule of law and history of championing it, should focus on how this process can strengthen the rule of law in Nepal. The problem of impunity has significantly weakened the rule of law in the country. This has also hampered Nepal’s possibility for development, as no investors have confidence in the system. Donors' support to the government has also been largely wasted as no one in power could be held to account for not delivering. We hope that this TJ process will contribute to improving the rule of law in the country and not undermine it further.
Human rights violations are not only the problems of the past, but they are continuing. However, the police, the sole agency for investigation of crimes, is controlled by the party in the government and do not demonstrate the ability to investigate cases where political party leaders have a stake. How we reform the police is another major area where the UK government can support. This is where we want the international community to be aware and engage in a way that does not weaken the victims' rights to services that would ensure reparations, truth-seeking, and justice, as well as strengthen the rule of law.
5. What are the broader issues that human rights defenders and organisations like Advocacy Forum face in Nepal?
Recently, there has been a certain indifference from the international community regarding some of these issues, especially in the protection of human rights defenders. This is partly due to the emergence of numerous new issues, such as environmental and climate change concerns. While it is good to recognise these as important issues, it is also crucial not to forget the challenges we have faced for many years.
Firstly, organisations and defenders working on accountability issues, especially those demanding individual accountability for serious violations, are the most targeted by the state. The state employs various methods to target them, often less direct than in other countries. One significant tool used against such organisations is restricting access to foreign funding. There is a law requiring prior government permission for any organisation seeking foreign funding. Organisations like Advocacy Forum that focus on challenging impunity face difficulties in obtaining this permission and therefore struggle to access funding.
Secondly, obtaining approval for donors is problematic. The Government has a state body responsible for regulating NGOs in Nepal, and they must approve every proposal we have with donors. This approval process can take many months, causing us to lose momentum as more challenges arise. By the time we reach the end of the process, momentum is lost, and many additional challenges emerge.
Another issue facing organisations is monitoring. It is not that NGOs should operate without accountability; they should be monitored and regulated. However, certain NGOs are targeted disproportionately, because the government is disapproving of their work. Some organisations have also faced smear campaigns against them, and bureaucrats also state their dislike of certain organisations not supporting the government, hindering their registration and renewal process. They create many administrative hurdles that are simply impossible to meet.
For organisations such as Advocacy Forum, in addition to their regular work, there are numerous other concerns to manage. The issues I have highlighted today demonstrate the various ways organisations and defenders are targeted. It is crucial to have an openness to understand how existing laws on NGOs impact the work of human rights defenders. While there is a general belief that NGOs can operate freely in Nepal without issues, the reality is that some organisations face significant challenges. These are the areas that the international community should investigate.
If our conversation with Mandira inspired you to take action, here are some easy ways that you can help:
You can help us continue to support Mandira and other human rights defenders by donating to PBI UK today.
Share and read the report, ‘Peace without Justice and Accountability?’ in Nepal. More information and the full report can be found here.
Take 10 minutes to write to your MP and ask them what they are doing to ensure the UK government supports human right defenders, and to ensure a victim-centred approach to transitional justice in Nepal. You can find your local MP here and use our email template here (downloads from your browser automatically).
You can also sign up for our quarterly newsletter to learn about additional opportunities to support threatened human rights defenders in Nepal and globally.
