Kathmandu, December 1

Nepal Police’s former Inspector General of Police Chandra Kuber Khapung, referring to the incidents of September 8 and 9, says, “The responsibility for a district’s peace and security lies with the Chief District Officer (CDO)”.

He has stated, citing provisions of the Local Administration Act and the Police Regulations that the Inspector General of Police has no role in a district’s peace and security matters.

After the Gen-Z protests, a writ petition was filed at the Supreme Court demanding Khapung’s arrest, accusing the then IGP of failing to fulfill his duty and alleging that the deaths of teenagers due to police suppression occurred under his command.

Responding to the case in which he was also made a defendant, Khapung argued that a district’s peace and security, being under the jurisdiction of the Chief District Officer, does not fall within the role of the IGP.

He has cited Section 6 of the Local Administration Act, 2028 BS, which states that maintaining peace and security is the responsibility of the CDO. He has also referenced Rules 68 and 70 of the Police Regulations, 2071 BS.

“In matters of maintaining law and order within a district, the police remain under the direct supervision and control of the concerned CDO. There is no provision in any existing law or regulation that assigns such a role to the Inspector General of Police,” he stated in his written response.

He further wrote that the allegation that the IGP failed to perform his duty is “imaginary and subjective.”

There has been widespread criticism over the suppression during the Gen-Z protests and the use of excessive force by police that resulted in the deaths of 22 individuals. Although discussions were underway to remove Khapung from his position after the formation of the government under Sushila Karki’s leadership, the government was unable to reach a decision.

Immediately after he left the position of IGP, a probe commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki barred Khapung from leaving the Kathmandu Valley. However, his statement has not yet been recorded.

While he was still in office, the probe commission had warned him of contempt action for non-cooperation and for failing to provide required documents during the investigation.

In his written response to the Supreme Court, Khapung argued that police officers acting with good faith cannot be punished. He maintained that he performed his duties as IGP according to the law, and that the officers under him also acted with good intentions and therefore cannot be subjected to action.

Quoting the Police Act, he wrote:  “When the Chief District Officer or a police officer performs the duties required under this Act or other prevailing laws, or exercises the powers granted under the law in good faith, they cannot be held liable for punishment or compensation.”

He further clarified the legal meaning of “good faith,” stating that under prevailing law, even if there was negligence or failure, an action done “with honesty” is considered to be done in good faith.

A few days ago, Human Rights Watch, the global human rights monitoring organization, published a report on the suppression of the Gen-Z protests, concluding that police fired indiscriminately for almost three hours at protesters.

The report stated that police used direct lethal force, metal bullets, to disperse protesters. The shots were reportedly aimed at the head, chest, and abdomen, and force was used even when security personnel were not in “life-threatening danger.”

However, remaining silent on these issues, IGP Khapung defended the firing on September 8, saying it was necessary to maintain public order and protect government property. He described the actions as “work done with honesty.”

He wrote in his response, “No police personnel can be punished for actions performed honestly. To declare anyone guilty, the authority making such a declaration must be legally empowered.”

While Khapung quoted legal provisions that protect police officers acting in good faith, his written response remained silent on the legal procedures that must be followed when using force for crowd or riot control.

On September 8, the police had set up only a light barricade in front of Hotel Everest in Baneshwar, without prior information about the scale of the protests. After protesters bypassed the barricade, force was used in front of the Parliament building.

The Local Administration Act, which Khapung cites, states that police may be mobilized for crowd control, and if police cannot control the situation, the CDO or a representative assigned by the CDO must first instruct the crowd to maintain order.

After that, the sequence must be baton charge, tear gas, water cannon, and aerial firing.  If the crowd still cannot be controlled, police may fire with prior warning, targeting below the knee. Such an order must be given in writing.

The post “The CDO is accountable for district security, not the IGP,” says former IGP Khapung appeared first on OnlineKhabar English News.