Criminal Liability For Failure To Prevent Riots
Criminal Liability for Failure to Prevent Riots in Nepal
Riots, public disturbances, and the failure of authorities or individuals to prevent them can result in criminal liability in Nepal. The prosecution in riot cases often hinges on whether appropriate steps were taken to prevent violence, and if authorities or individuals failed in their duties to control or prevent the riot. Let’s dive into the legal framework, followed by an exploration of several case law examples that illustrate criminal liability for failing to prevent riots in Nepal.
Legal Framework in Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code (2074)
Section 157: Defines riot, and criminalizes participation in a riot and incitement to violence.
Section 160: Defines unlawful assembly and provides penalties for participation in such gatherings.
Section 158: Deals with acts of violence committed during a riot or unlawful assembly.
Section 179: Failure of government authorities or individuals who are expected to maintain public peace to prevent or manage riots may lead to criminal charges.
Section 186: Provides punishment for obstructing public servants from performing their duties during a riot.
Public Offenses Act, 2020 (1943)
Section 3: Focuses on the role of law enforcement agencies in controlling public disturbances.
Section 5: Criminalizes acts of omission by police officers or government officials if they fail to take appropriate action to prevent riots.
Police Act, 2012
Defines the responsibility of law enforcement officers in controlling riots and public disturbances.
Failure to prevent or control riots by police officers could lead to internal investigations, criminal charges, or disciplinary actions.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: 2017 – Failure to Control Political Riots in Terai
Facts:
In 2017, violent protests erupted in the Terai region, driven by political dissatisfaction regarding the new federal system.
Hundreds of people were injured, and public property worth millions of rupees was destroyed.
The police and local authorities were accused of not responding quickly enough to prevent the escalation of violence.
Legal Issues:
The case raised issues of negligence and failure of authorities to prevent a riot under Section 179 of the Muluki Criminal Code.
Whether the government and police acted within their mandate to control the situation.
Outcome:
After an investigation, several senior police officers and government officials were reprimanded for failing to take timely action.
A special committee was formed to address the institutional shortcomings in managing such protests.
Although no criminal prosecutions were filed directly against police or government officials, disciplinary actions were taken against some officers for failure to contain the violence promptly.
Significance:
This case illustrates the liability of public officials for failing to prevent riots, especially when there is clear negligence in enforcing the law.
Case 2: 2019 – Kathmandu Valley Student Riots
Facts:
A student protest in Kathmandu escalated into a violent riot, with protestors clashing with the police and engaging in property destruction.
Police failed to deploy adequate numbers of officers to control the situation, leading to widespread violence.
Legal Issues:
Negligence and failure to control a riot.
Violation of Section 179 of the Muluki Criminal Code (failure to act by public officials).
Whether police officers were criminally liable for allowing the riot to escalate and for failing to protect public property and individuals.
Outcome:
After the riot, several police officers were investigated for their inability to control the crowd.
Two police officers were held criminally liable for negligence under Section 179 and Section 186 of the Criminal Code.
Police reforms were initiated, and officers were reassigned as part of disciplinary measures.
Significance:
This case highlighted that police officers can be criminally liable for failing to perform their duty during a riot or public disturbance.
Case 3: 2020 – Failure of Local Authorities in Managing Riotous Behavior in Bhaktapur
Facts:
A protest in Bhaktapur, triggered by a controversial decision from local authorities, turned into a violent riot, with locals attacking government offices and vehicles.
Local law enforcement failed to take action immediately, and the riot resulted in injuries to several civilians.
Legal Issues:
The failure of local government and police to act quickly and effectively to prevent further violence.
Criminal liability under Section 179 of the Muluki Criminal Code for government officials' failure to maintain public order and protect citizens.
Outcome:
The chief of local police was found to have been negligent in his duties.
He was suspended and faced disciplinary action for his failure to prevent the escalation of violence.
In addition, an internal review of the local authorities' response to public protests was conducted.
Significance:
Demonstrates that local government officials and police officers can be criminally accountable for failure to prevent riots and uphold public order.
Case 4: 2021 – Ethnic Riots in Lumbini Region
Facts:
In 2021, violent clashes between two ethnic groups broke out in the Lumbini region, with the violence escalating into a full-blown riot.
Police were accused of not preventing the violence and failing to arrest known instigators who had actively promoted the violence online.
Legal Issues:
Failure of the police to act despite prior knowledge of the potential for violence.
Whether the police were liable under Sections 179 and 186 of the Muluki Criminal Code for obstruction of public duty and failure to control the riot.
Outcome:
Investigations showed that local police had intelligence about potential violence but failed to take preventive measures.
Several police officers were charged with failure to perform their duties and faced disciplinary action.
The court held that police negligence contributed to the escalation of the violence and ordered compensation for the victims.
Significance:
This case underscores that failure to prevent riots, especially when authorities have prior knowledge of potential threats, can result in criminal liability for public officials.
Case 5: 2022 – Kathmandu Valley Protests and Police Inaction
Facts:
In Kathmandu, protests organized by various student unions turned into a violent riot, with protestors clashing with police and destroying vehicles.
Reports indicated that police were hesitant to intervene forcefully to control the crowd.
Legal Issues:
Failure to act in preventing damage to property and injury to civilians.
Negligence in handling a public disturbance and violation of Sections 179 and 186 of the Muluki Criminal Code.
Outcome:
Several police officers were brought up on charges of negligence for failing to prevent the riot.
The court found that their inadequate response led to unnecessary escalation and chaos.
The involved officers were held liable for criminal omission under Section 179.
Significance:
This case shows that failure to act, even if done out of caution or hesitation, can result in criminal liability for officials when it leads to significant harm.
Key Takeaways
Government and police responsibility: Authorities and law enforcement officers are expected to prevent or contain riots. Failure to do so can result in criminal liability under the Muluki Criminal Code.
Liability for negligence: Inaction, especially when authorities are aware of potential threats or disturbances, can lead to charges for criminal omission or failure to perform their duties.
Disciplinary actions: Officers or government officials can face disciplinary measures, suspension, or imprisonment if found negligent.
Protection of public property and life: Ensuring safety and preventing damage to public property is a primary responsibility of law enforcement; failure to act may lead to criminal consequences.
RELATED Blog
comments