Nepal: Two recent incidents have made people question Dahal government’s sincerity to protect constitutional freedoms.
It was quite a sight. On Tuesday, police personnel were seen trying to tightly cover the mouths of some youths who were protesting against Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal—directly to his face. The young protestors seemed displeased with the high interest rates the banks and financial institutions have been charging of late.
In no time, the video of the
police personnel trying to gag the protestors went viral, courting criticisms
from all sections of society. The issue even reached the National Assembly.
National Assembly member
Bimala Rai Paudel sought answers from the Home Ministry in the upper house
meeting on Wednesday. “The photos are out that the police are seen trying to
cover the mouths of protesters who are trying to speak. What were they trying to
say? Can the police close the mouths of those who want to speak? If not, has
the Home Ministry punished the police personnel concerned? I want answers from
the Home Ministry,” she said.
Instead, the protestors have
now been punished.
The District Administration
Office Kathmandu has allowed the police to keep the three detained protestors
in custody for five days for further investigation on charges of indecent
behaviour. The detained are Uddav Basnet, 23, from Solukhumbu, Som Sharma, 30,
from Baglung, and Biplav Khadka, 18, from Bajhang.
At the same time, the
government is being denounced as it is planning to saddle the federal
parliament with a controversial bill to amend telecommunication laws. Various
circles—from public to intelligentsia—have been criticising the draft of the
bill which will allow the government to tap the phones and social media
details, without prior court approval, of just about anyone.
The government has been
questioned on why it is trying to restrict people’s basic freedoms and violate
their right to privacy, which are the essence of democracy? What is happening
is a brutal attack on the right to privacy, and the right to information and
free speech, critics say.
Madhu Raman Acharya, former
foreign secretary, wrote on
Twitter that the police or investigating officer should never record the
personal phone calls under the pretext of investigation. Any such probe on a
serious matter like national security, without seeking permission from court
will go against personal freedom and privacy, he said.
Similarly, Nepali Congress senior leader
Shekhar Koirala also criticised the government for trying to bring the
provision to record personal call details. “Tapping phone calls under any
pretext is unacceptable in democracy. A question has also been raised about the
government’s intent as a similar attempt was stopped in the past following
criticism,” Koirala tweeted.
He has also asked political parties, human rights activists, civil society
members, and media personnel to seriously think about the issue.
The Oli government had also
tried to enforce similar provisions, allowing the investigative authorities to
monitor or intercept the call, audio, video, electronic signal or details of the
public. The attempt was foiled following intense opposition from various walks
of life as well as from the opposition parties. Two years ago, the information
technology bill was stopped after it drew severe criticism, as it endangered
free speech.
Till now, a court permit is a
must to access someone’s phone calls or SMS records. The court had issued a
mandamus order in 2016 barring the police and investigating authorities from
accessing the phone and SMS records without a permission from the court.
If the draft bill gets
endorsed, authorities seeking a prior court permission will be a thing of the
past.
Section 77 (1) of the draft says the
investigative body can record calls of anyone, or get the details disclosing
the identity or other details from the service provider if the person in
question is believed to be engaged in activities against Nepal’s sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, treason, crime or organised crime or
criminal offence. Section 77 (2) says that there will be direct access to
service providers for activities under sub-section 1.
Similarly, Section 79 states
that investigating officers can also deactivate a telephone, mobile or
communication media.
Internet freedom advocate and
president of Digital Rights Nepal Santosh Sigdel said Section 79 restricts the
freedom of expression and right to information.
According to him, Section 77
(1) allows interception of all kinds of criminal offences, irrespective of
their gravity, which is not justifiable on the grounds of ‘necessity’ and
‘proportionality’.
Similarly, the draft bill
doesn’t distinguish between emergency and non-emergency situations.
“Democracies around the world allow a certain level of executive power to be
exercised in times of emergency,” he said. For example, in
The proposed draft also does not define the
vague term “authorised investigation agency”. Similarly, it is unclear which
personnel from such agencies will have access to private phone records. “The
fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution cannot have such a
low ceiling,” said Sigdel.
A broad provision under
Article 77 (2) is even more problematic, according to Sigdel. “The provision of
direct access to the entire system of service providers is aimed at widespread
surveillance of citizens. Furthermore, the proposed provision says authorised
agencies can use any ‘appropriate technology’ they deem necessary. The Pegasus
software issue in
Opposition parties in
Tara Nath Dahal, executive
chairman of the Freedom Forum that advocates free speech, said signs are that
the Nepali state is not serious about protecting civil liberties. “We call this
a democratic country and we have the right to freedom and privacy enshrined in
our constitution too, but the state mechanisms including the political
leadership are not committed to even basic freedoms such as the freedom of
expression and right to privacy,” he said.
“Whenever the authorities are
challenged, they show intolerance. They can’t take criticism. Our political
system is democratic, but the mindset of our leadership is authoritarian,” said
Dahal.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments