KATHMANDU: CPN (UML) chairman and Former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who fled by helicopter due to the Gen- Z movement on September 09, 2025, has presented a series of counter-questions to the commission formed to investigate the killings and damages during the Gen Z movement on September 8 and 9, 2025.

During a statement taken by commission officials at his residence in Gundu, Oli questioned whether the commission had investigated those responsible for setting fire to his home and other public property.

“All of my property was burned, and even the private property of others-sold 23 years ago-was torched simply because they had allowed me to stay there,” Oli stated in his testimony. “My house was the only one set on fire in Tehrathum district. Has the commission interrogated or taken statements from those responsible for these acts?”

Oli maintained that he never ordered security forces to fire upon young protesters. He clarified that such matters are technical and decided through various levels of state mechanisms, noting that a Prime Minister does not personally issue orders to open fire.

“Regarding the immediate and spontaneous incidents that occurred during the Gen Z movement on September 8 (Bhadra 23), these are not matters reported directly to the Prime Minister,” Oli said. “The Prime Minister does not issue orders to the police; the Ministry of Home Affairs functions as the departmental ministry for such affairs.”

He further claimed that the government had no intention of mobilizing the army. “The government did not intend to deploy the army, and the advice from the Nepali Army was consistent with that. On the night of the 7th, following discussions with security chiefs, it was anticipated that around 6,000 to 7,000 protesters would gather peacefully. As Prime Minister, my instructions were specifically to prevent any casualties.”

Oli also alleged that the movement had been hijacked. “Logically, a Prime Minister cannot be held accountable for these specific actions. The unruly activities-such as attacking security personnel, snatching their uniforms and weapons, and taking selfies—were certainly not carried out by the Gen Z groups who announced the protest. Instead, these were the actions of infiltrators taking advantage of the situation. Even the Gen Z youth have stated that their demands were hijacked and that their original intent was a peaceful protest.”

Here is snapshot of statement of former Prime Minister Oli:

Following the Tinkune incident in Kathmandu in March 28, 2025, I consistently instructed all security agencies to ensure minimal loss of life and property and to remain vigilant against the infiltration of undesirable elements.

Since the Home Minister chairs the Central Security Committee and possesses all information regarding security sensitivities, I requested that the former Home Minister appear before the commission to provide answers. Many issues must have been clarified through his testimony. In reality, the events of September 8 and 9, 2025 (Bhadra 23 and 24) were unimaginable and barbaric acts, the likes of which the country has never seen.

The Prime Minister is not the direct authority for immediate field reports during protests. The Ministry of Home Affairs remains the responsible departmental entity. Therefore, it is illogical to hold the Prime Minister accountable for spontaneous field escalations. The infiltrators who exploited the movement committed excesses that the original protesters never intended.

There was a deliberate attempt to burn down the Parliament building on the 8th. Groups with ulterior motives used the youth as a front, inciting them to create a life-threatening environment. The arson and attacks on all three branches of government were planned. The Parliament, representing sovereign citizens; Singha Durbar, the administrative heart of the country; and the Supreme Court, the seat of justice, were all targeted. Files and data were specifically searched for and destroyed. Videos of those involved are public; has the commission taken their statements?

While I could have convened the National Security Council to issue directives, the government’s stance was to use minimal force and avoid human casualties. We chose not to mobilize the army based on their own professional recommendations.

Burning down industries is equivalent to burning the nation’s economy. These were attacks on our social fabric, our economic systems, and our culture, aimed at devastating the country. How can investment be promoted in such an environment?

Following the incidents of September 8, the government met that evening and decided to form a judicial commission for an impartial investigation, provide effective treatment for the injured, offer relief to the families of the deceased, and lift the ban on social media as demanded by the Gen Z generation. I resigned on September 9. If I were the sole obstacle causing the movement, everything should have returned to normal after my resignation-but did it?

Regarding social media regulation, the government made a decision because there must be accountability. People must be responsible for what they post. Officials in charge at the time have already given their statements, and I have repeatedly shared my views on this matter publicly.