KATHMANDU: Agni Prasad Sapkota, former Speaker and current Vice-Chair of the CPN (Maoist Centre), is facing a decades-old murder case from the conflict era.
On June 4, 2025, Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered a criminal investigation into the case, sparking renewed discussions about justice, accountability, and the role of transitional bodies like the TRC.
This explainer will break down Agni Sapkota’s political background, the details of the murder case, key legal developments, the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, and the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in shaping the investigation and Nepal’s transitional justice process.
Who is Agni Prasad Sapkota, and what is his political background?
Agni Prasad Sapkota is a Nepalese politician, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the current Vice-Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre). Born on March 7, 1958, in Kubhinde, Sindhupalchok district, Sapkota entered politics in the mid-1970s through student activism. In 1978, he joined the Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention), marking the beginning of a political career that would span decades and intersect with both armed insurgency and democratic governance.
A significant milestone in his career came in 1995, when he aligned with Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” during a major leftist split, helping establish the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
This party launched a violent Maoist insurgency in 1996 against the monarchy and the parliamentary system, seeking to replace the state with a people’s republic. During the decade-long civil war (1996–2006), Sapkota emerged as a powerful commander and political ideologue.
He operated underground, led armed campaigns in various districts, and became a politburo member of the Maoist party. He also served as a key figure in the Maoists’ parallel governance structure — the United Revolutionary People’s Council — which administered areas under insurgent control.
After the Comprehensive Peace Accord was signed in 2006, ending the conflict, Sapkota transitioned into open politics. He was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Sindhupalchok in both 2008 and 2013, helping draft Nepal’s new constitution.
He served as a Minister for Information and Communications in 2011 during the Jhalanath Khanal-led government. In 2020, Sapkota became Speaker of the House of Representatives following the resignation of Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who stepped down over a rape allegation. His appointment sparked controversy, as he was already facing accusations of involvement in a war-era murder — a charge that has shadowed his political career for years.
Despite legal and moral questions, Sapkota remained a central figure in Maoist and national politics. In 2023, following internal party reshuffles, he became the Vice-Chairman of the CPN (Maoist Centre). However, in a significant development, on June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court ordered a criminal investigation into Sapkota’s alleged role in a wartime killing — a move that could have major legal and political repercussions.
What is the 2005 Arjun Lama murder case, and how is Agni Sapkota implicated?
The case of Arjun Lama stands as one of the most high-profile unresolved war-era murder cases in Nepal, symbolizing the deep-rooted culture of impunity that has plagued the country since the Maoist insurgency. Lama, a civilian from Kavre district, was abducted on 16 Baisakh 2062 B.S. (April 29, 2005), by Maoist cadres in broad daylight from the premises of Shree Krishna Secondary School in Chhatrebanjh, just after being elected chairperson of the school’s management committee.
According to multiple eyewitnesses and testimonies documented by human rights organizations like Advocacy Forum and Human Rights Watch, Lama was forcibly taken by Maoist operatives Yadav Poudel alias ‘Rocky,’ Bhola Aryal, and Karnakhar Gautam.
He was transported to a Maoist military training camp in then Bundakhani Village Development Committee in Kavre. There, he was presented before senior Maoist leader Agni Sapkota—then a central committee member overseeing operations in the region—by cadre Norbu Moktan.
The National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) investigation concluded that Lama was brutally tortured under Maoist custody. Former NHRC Commissioner Sushil Pyakurel has stated that Lama was subjected to extreme forms of abuse.
The commission further found that, acting on the direct orders of Agni Sapkota, Lama was forced to dig his own grave before being buried alive. His body was never recovered. The Maoists are believed to have kept him in captivity for 47 days before executing him.
Lama’s wife, Purnimaya Lama, made repeated attempts to file a First Information Report (FIR) at the Kavre District Police Office, naming Sapkota and the individuals involved. However, her complaint was initially rejected by the local police, reportedly due to fear of Maoist retaliation amid a fragile post-conflict political climate.
What is the case filed against Agni Sapkota, and how did it reach the Supreme Court?
In a bid to seek justice, Purnimaya Lama filed a formal complaint at the Kavre District Police Office demanding an investigation into the incident. However, the police refused to register the case, arguing that wartime incidents like these fell under the jurisdiction of transitional justice mechanisms — specifically the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) — established as part of Nepal’s post-conflict justice framework.
Refusing to accept this reasoning, Purnimaya Lama filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court on 2nd Falgun 2064 B.S. (February 14, 2008), challenging the police’s refusal to register the case. In a landmark ruling issued in Shrawan 2065 B.S. (August 2008), the Supreme Court concluded that the police had overstepped their authority by declining to file the complaint.
The Court clarified that the existence of transitional justice mechanisms did not preclude the operation of regular criminal justice procedures, especially in cases involving serious crimes like murder.
Following the Court’s order, Purnimaya Lama staged a sit-in protest outside the Kavre District Police Office to demand compliance with the verdict. Eventually, on 26 Shrawan 2065 B.S. (August 10, 2008), the police registered her complaint against Agni Sapkota and five other individuals. An arrest warrant was subsequently issued against Sapkota, though it has never been enforced.
Since then, the case has remained entangled in a wider legal and political debate about whether grave wartime abuses should be prosecuted under the regular criminal justice system or handled through transitional justice mechanisms — a debate that lies at the heart of Nepal’s fragile peace process.
While successive governments and parties have favored shielding conflict-era actors from prosecution under the guise of “reconciliation,” victims like Purnimaya Lama have insisted on judicial accountability. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision laid the groundwork for continued legal scrutiny, culminating in the fresh 2025 order to criminally investigate Sapkota.
Why was Agni Sapkota’s appointment as Minister in 2011 controversial?
Agni Prasad Sapkota’s appointment as Minister for Information and Communications on 21 Baisakh 2068 B.S. (May 4, 2011), during the premiership of Jhala Nath Khanal, sparked significant public outcry and legal controversy.
At the time, Sapkota was already an accused in a wartime murder case involving the 2005 abduction and alleged killing of Arjun Lama. His elevation to a Cabinet post, despite the pending criminal complaint and a Supreme Court ruling requiring investigation, was widely condemned as a violation of fundamental democratic and legal principles.
A coalition of journalists and human rights defenders, including Kanak Mani Dixit, Sushil Pyakurel, Kapil Shrestha, Subodh Pyakurel, Charan Prasai, Mandira Sharma, Sunil Ranjan Singh, and Gopal Krishna Shiwakoti, filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court demanding Sapkota’s dismissal.
The petition argued that appointing someone formally accused of murder to a constitutional executive position not only eroded the rule of law but also sent a dangerous message about impunity in Nepal’s transitional justice process.
The writ also named then-Home Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara as a defendant, pointing to his public statements advocating the withdrawal of conflict-era cases — a stance widely interpreted as an attempt to shield party leaders from legal accountability. This raised further alarm about political interference in judicial and investigative processes.
How did the Supreme Court respond to the writ petition against Sapkota?
On 7 Asar 2068 B.S. (June 21, 2011), a two-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Ram Kumar Prasad Shah and Prakash Wasti heard the petition. The Court acknowledged the gravity of the concerns but ruled that the existence of a criminal complaint alone does not legally bar someone from holding public office under Nepal’s prevailing laws. On that basis, the Court declined to issue an interim order blocking Sapkota’s ministerial role.
However, the Court did not exonerate state institutions. In a strongly worded observation, it condemned the Nepal Police and the government for their prolonged inaction and failure to investigate the complaint lodged by Purnimaya Lama in 2008. Emphasizing the foundational values of human rights, rule of law, and justice for victims, the Court issued a mandamus order — a binding directive to the government — stating that the murder case must be investigated in line with existing legal provisions.
The court stated in its order: “Given the supremacy of the rule of law, the fundamental values of human rights, and the concept of justice for victims and against impunity, the court cannot remain indifferent. Therefore, in the murder case registered through Purnamaya Lama’s complaint, the investigation must proceed in accordance with prevailing law. Until this writ petition is conclusively settled, details of any obstruction, pressure, or non-cooperation faced during the investigation must be submitted to this court every 15 days through the Office of the Attorney General.”
In an important procedural instruction, the Court ordered the Office of the Attorney General to submit biweekly reports every 15 days detailing any obstruction, political pressure, or non-cooperation encountered during the investigation. This provision was a clear attempt by the judiciary to ensure oversight and push back against political interference in criminal proceedings.
Despite this ruling, the investigation made little progress in subsequent years. Successive governments ignored the spirit of the order, and no arrests were made. Yet, the 2011 judgment remains a landmark in Nepal’s transitional justice discourse — underscoring the tension between political expediency and judicial responsibility in post-conflict governance.
What happened after the Baburam Bhattarai-led government withdrew the case against Agni Sapkota?
In 12th of Shrawan, 2069 B.S. (July 27, 2012), the government led by the then Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai controversially decided to withdraw the murder case registered against Agni Prasad Sapkota. This decision came amid intense political negotiations and attempts at consolidating peace between former Maoist insurgents and mainstream political forces. The withdrawal was widely criticized by victims’ families, human rights groups, and opposition parties as an act of political shielding that undermined justice and accountability.
Reacting swiftly, Purnimaya Lama, the widow of the murdered Arjun Lama and the original complainant, filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court on 7 Mangsir 2069 B.S. (November 22, 2012).
Her petition challenged the cabinet’s decision to withdraw the case and condemned the police for keeping the complaint dormant, effectively denying her family justice for years. She demanded the cancellation of the government’s withdrawal order and insisted on reviving a proper investigation.
How did the legal battle over the murder case against Agni Prasad Sapkota evolve over the years?
Despite this legal battle, Agni Sapkota’s political career continued to advance. In 2072 B.S. (October 2015), he was appointed Minister for Forests and Environment in KP Sharma Oli-led Cabinet, representing the Maoist Centre.
This appointment again drew sharp criticism, particularly from human rights activists like Kanak Mani Dixit, who filed a new writ petition demanding that a person accused in a serious murder case should not hold ministerial office and must instead face prosecution in the Kavre District Court.
Throughout this period, the case remained stuck in judicial limbo. Multiple petitions were pending simultaneously at the Supreme Court, which saw frequent transfers between judicial benches and prolonged hearings stretching over years. Amid this backdrop of uncertainty and political controversy, Sapkota reached a significant milestone in his career when he was elected Speaker of the Federal Parliament in Magh 2076 B.S. (27 January, 2020).
The elevation of an accused person to such a high constitutional office rekindled the public debate on political accountability and the rule of law. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continued to hear the case intermittently, with hearings numbering over thirty. Most recently, during its 36th hearing in 2025, the Court issued an important order directing a criminal investigation into the charges against Sapkota, signaling a renewed judicial focus on resolving the longstanding dispute.
What were the Supreme Court’s 4th June 2025 rulings on Agni Sapkota, and why are they considered a turning point in Nepal’s transitional justice process?
In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for Nepal’s transitional justice process, the Supreme Court on June 4, 2025 issued three coordinated rulings centered on Agni Prasad Sapkota, a senior leader of the CPN (Maoist Centre) and former Speaker of the House of Representatives. The judgments have been hailed by human rights advocates as a judicial watershed moment, breaking years of political impunity and offering hope for conflict-era accountability.
The five-member Constitutional Bench, chaired by Chief Justice Prakashman Singh Raut and including Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, Manoj Kumar Sharma, and Kumar Chudal, issued a mandamus order directing law enforcement authorities to resume the stalled criminal investigation against Sapkota and others.
In doing so, the Court overturned the 2012 Cabinet order, affirming that executive decisions cannot override judicial procedures or criminal accountability—especially in cases involving grave human rights violations.
Beyond the central ruling on the Lama case, the Court also dismissed two related petitions. The first was a 2016 writ petition filed by human rights activists, which sought to bar Sapkota from holding ministerial office due to pending murder allegations. The Court ruled that political appointments fall under the executive’s discretion unless a conviction or legal disqualification exists.
The second was a contempt of court petition filed by Sapkota himself against noted civil society leader Kanak Mani Dixit, who had criticized the judicial handling of the case. The Court found no sufficient grounds for contempt, upholding the constitutional right to free expression, particularly on matters of public interest.
Together, these decisions send a powerful message: no one is above the law, and Nepal’s judiciary is prepared to assert its authority even against politically influential figures. The rulings offer renewed hope to victims’ families who have long faced institutional apathy, signaling that Nepal’s transitional justice process may finally be moving beyond symbolic gestures.
For legal scholars and transitional justice experts, the verdicts also reaffirm the independence of the judiciary, establish limits on executive overreach, and stress the non-negotiable nature of criminal investigations in cases of serious human rights violations. As a result, the June 2025 rulings are seen not only as a victory for Purnimaya Lama but also as a critical precedent for other stalled conflict-era cases in Nepal’s fragile post-war legal landscape.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s recent order and how did the human rights experts respond?
Human rights activists and legal experts have hailed the Supreme Court’s recent order regarding Agni Sapkota’s war-era murder case as one of the most significant judicial decisions in Nepal’s transitional justice history.
Since the end of the Maoist insurgency in 2006, numerous conflict-era cases have suffered prolonged delays, often mired in political interference, procedural roadblocks, and institutional inertia. Victims and their families have frequently expressed frustration at the slow pace and lack of accountability.
The Court’s directive to continue criminal investigations despite political and administrative challenges was seen as a powerful reaffirmation of the rule of law and a critical step toward addressing impunity related to the decade-long conflict.
Activists argued that this order sent a clear message that neither political status nor time can shield accused persons from justice, potentially breaking the longstanding cycle of stalled transitional justice efforts.
How did Agni Prasad Sapkota respond publicly to the Supreme Court’s order and what concerns did he raise regarding the media coverage and legal process?
In the aftermath of media reports widely portraying the Supreme Court’s order as a decisive green light for immediate investigation and prosecution, Agni Prasad Sapkota disputed this characterization. He clarified that the Court had not yet issued any formal, written judgment or definitive final order but had only issued a writ petition notice, which is a procedural step in the judicial process.
Sapkota stressed that interpreting this notice as an automatic authorization for investigation was inaccurate and misleading. He cautioned against drawing conclusions without first reviewing the complete text of the Court’s directive. He emphasized his intention to study the full legal documentation carefully before commenting further or accepting any conclusions about the progress of the case.
Additionally, Sapkota expressed concern about the role of the media in shaping public perception. He suggested that sensationalized or partial reporting could create misunderstandings, potentially damage his reputation and confuse the public about the judicial process and the status of the case. He urged patience and respect for the legal procedure, insisting that the matter was still under judicial consideration with no final decisions made.
By clarifying these points, Sapkota sought to counter what he described as premature or unfair judgments against him, underscoring that the case remains legally unresolved. His response highlights the complexities of transitional justice cases in Nepal, where legal, political, and media narratives often collide, complicating public understanding.
What role does the TRC have in Agni Sapkota’s case, and what does the Supreme Court’s order mean for the investigation?
Following the Supreme Court’s recent order to reopen the investigation against Agni Sapkota for the alleged wartime murder of Arjun Lama, a key question has arisen about which agency holds the authority to conduct the investigation. This is particularly important because the case involves alleged violations during Nepal’s armed conflict (1996–2006), a period that falls under the mandate of the country’s transitional justice mechanisms.
Nepal’s Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Act clearly assigns the authority to investigate conflict-era cases to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
According to Section 13(3) of the original Act, regardless of other existing laws, any complaints related to incidents during the armed conflict that are still pending before various agencies must be investigated by the TRC. This means that although the Supreme Court has directed a criminal investigation into the murder case, the TRC has the statutory mandate to take over such conflict-related cases.
Further reinforcing this, the recently amended Section 13(7)(a) of the TRC Act empowers the Commission to request and take over complaints filed with the police, the National Human Rights Commission, or other bodies related to serious human rights violations during the conflict for investigation purposes. This provision aims to centralize and streamline transitional justice processes under the TRC’s specialized framework.
The Supreme Court’s order effectively annuls the 2012 Cabinet decision that had halted the case, paving the way for renewed investigation. However, the involvement of the TRC raises complex questions about how criminal justice and transitional justice mechanisms will interact in this case.
If the TRC takes over the investigation, it would operate under a framework designed not only to determine criminal responsibility but also to promote reconciliation and truth recovery, possibly including mechanisms like truth-telling, victim reparations, and amnesty provisions. Critics argue this might complicate or delay strict criminal prosecution, while supporters view it as essential for addressing the root causes of conflict and achieving lasting peace.
The Supreme Court’s directive reignites the case, but the TRC’s statutory mandate suggests it will likely play a leading role in investigating the case, potentially affecting the scope, timing, and outcomes of justice for both the accused and the victims. How the government and law enforcement balance criminal prosecution with the TRC’s transitional justice approach remains a crucial issue in Nepal’s ongoing post-conflict reconciliation journey.
Timeline of key events:
