Report on FFO-Norway and NFD-Nepal cooperation

Background

After the amendment of NFDN constitution in 2002, approved by a "special general assembly" which took place in Bhaktapur, a serious conflict emerged in the organisation and relations between supporters of the new constitution and opposing members remained constraint. The opposition considered the amended constitution undemocratic and discriminatory in terms of affiliation of new member organisations in the NFDN umbrella organisation. Besides, the opposition meant that the process of amending the constitution was done without securing 2/3 majority of the special general assembly votes, which is clearly defined in the NFDN constitution.

Since then the conflict between existing NFDN leadership and the opposition groups took a serious form and the opposition group initiated various ways of legal process. Concerned government institutions were formally contacted - in this case the Ministry of Home Affairs. Unfortunately, the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs created further confusion by taking double decisions.

Opposition continued its process ahead by filing the case in the Supreme Court. After several months exercise, debates, justifications and inquiries, the Supreme Court ultimately accepted the writ application by the opposition group and finally issued the direction order in the name of Home Ministry. The direction order was to dissolve the existing constitution, re-enforce the 1993 constitution and finally amend this with democratic values and norms by opening the affiliation to all organisations of PWD and thereby electing a new working committee in a democratic manner. This mandate would be given to the present ad-hoc committee.

The amended constitution of 2002 at Bhaktapur was dissolved and so was the case for the existing working committee. The NFDN constitution of 1993 was therefore set into force. The present ad-hoc committee was formed according to the 1993 constitution and is working under the principle of 1993 constitution. This term will remain valid till the new amended constitution is in place.

Based upon the Supreme Court verdict, the action was set into practice by formulating an Ad-hoc committee. The committee was given mandates with certain tasks and the time frame was calculated to three months.

Purpose/objective

Due to the situation described above a lack of communication arose between NFDN and FFO. Reports were not submitted on time, e-mails and letters were not replied to. Like FFO, other international partners like DSI and VSO seemed very much concerned about the development within NFDN. The purpose of the evaluation was to clarify the situation within NFDN, and to get advices about future co-operation.

Key findings

The ad hoc committee is working smoothly and is well focused on the mandates and tasks they have been given, but running the case in the Supreme Court has taken a lot of attention.
Many positive comments from the regional and district level about the changes taken place after the SC-verdict, but the demand for better communication between the central level and the district level is high.
The long and demanding process of ongoing conflicts within NFDN are considered to have had a positive impact on the organisation, where the involved persons have participated in a good democratic exercise.

Recommendations

FFO should participate in the process of amending the new Constitution and to take part in the coming General assembly.
A tighter and more open communication between FFO and NFDN is recommended.
FFO should play an active role in donor meetings and continue to give support to NFDN.
Efforts should be made to reduce the gap between the central level of NFDN and the regional and district levels.