APF recommends clearer operation guideline in riot control

By A Staff Reporter,Kathmandu, Nov. 29: A recent proposal submitted by the Armed Police Force (APF) Nepal has reignited debate over the country’s riot-control protocols, following criticism that poor coordination between Nepal Police and the APF allowed the situation during the September 8 Gen-Z protests to spiral out of control.

In the aftermath of the incident, the APF has formally recommended clearer operational guidelines defining the circumstances under which it should be deployed. 

The proposal, advanced by the APF Headquarters, Halchowk, shortly after the formation of the interim government under Sushila Karki, is currently under discussion at the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Home Ministry’s Spokesperson and Joint Secretary Ananda Kafle confirmed that the APF has sought greater clarity on its role within the existing legal framework. “A proposal has been received calling for clearer operational boundaries within the current laws,” he said, noting that deliberations are going on, but no concrete decision has been taken yet.

Under the Local Administration Act 1971, Chief District Officers (CDOs) may deploy the APF only when Nepal Police fail to manage a security situation. However, this provision is largely ignored in practice and in the field during the time of a riot. Instead, security agencies are often mobilised simultaneously, based on recommendations from District Security Committees, even when disturbances are only anticipated. Intelligence personnel from the National Investigation Department are also routinely deployed alongside them.

Although the Act entitles CDOs to impose curfews and declare riot-affected zones, authorities frequently dispatch both forces (Nepal Police and APF) together. On the ground, this has led to operational friction, with reports of Nepal Police preventing APF personnel from taking frontline positions.

One senior APF official remarked that the force, originally established as a semi-military institution during the conflict era, is increasingly being treated like a conventional police unit, contrary to its mandated role.

The APF Act-2001 explicitly assigns the force responsibility for controlling actual or potential riots, but prohibits its deployment for routine crowds, rallies or slogan-chanting. Officers argue that recent practice contradicts the law, and that the APF should intervene only when police mediation fails and the situation escalates into unrest.

During the Gen-Z movement on 8 September, demonstrators marched from Maitighar towards the Parliament building in New Baneshwar. 

Nepal Police had placed a light barricade near Everest Hotel, which collapsed during minor scuffles. As protesters began damaging the wall surrounding Parliament, then–Inspector General of Police Chandra Kuber Khapung reportedly ordered officers to open fire.

Coordination between Nepal Police and the APF broke down entirely, with conflicting claims about whether APF personnel discharged firearms that day. Senior officials from the APF maintain that warning shots were fired at New Baneshwor. The incident resulted in the deaths of 22 protesters after security personnel opened fire on the advancing crowd.

Nepal Police later accused the APF of failing to provide adequate support, while the APF criticised its deployment as merely a ‘supporting force’ rather than an independent unit  with a defined mandate.

According to the draft submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the APF insists that its troops should not be deployed at the initial stages of crowd control. Nepal Police should first attempt negotiation and de-escalation, while APF units remain on standby nearby. Only if the police are unable to contain the situation should the APF move into the field.

Once deployed, the APF proposes that its field commanders coordinate closely with police commanders before using force. The draft sets out explicit criteria regarding when each agency should be mobilised and what actions they must take.

Spokesperson Kafle said the proposed policy aims to clearly delineate the roles of all security bodies during riot control.