🔒 YOU CAN SIGN 100% ANONYMOUSLY - just select “Hide my name” (or uncheck the box showing your name) on change_org before signing.

📌 Please sign first - every signature matters.

🌍 WE ALSO SEEK GLOBAL SUPPORT: Bhutan is part of the United Nations and is respected internationally, supported by global partners and development donors. This petition calls on the international community to stand with Bhutanese women and support justice, transparency, and accountability when serious allegations involve senior officials.

His Majesty The King has repeatedly emphasized the importance of accountability and exposing wrongdoing, in that spirit, this petition calls for transparency, justice, and institutional integrity so that no victim is silenced.

✅ SUMMARY

A serious complaint involving allegations of sexual assault, deception, intimidation, coercion, and abuse of authority has reportedly been filed against Bhutan’s Home Minister. Since the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) falls under the Home Ministry, this raises grave concerns of conflict of interest, institutional influence, and lack of independent investigation.

The complainant reports submitting substantial evidence to authorities, including multiple audio recordings, written communications, and other supporting materials. The complainant has also reportedly submitted extensive evidence relating to harassment, stalking, intimidation, defamation, and coordinated smear campaigns by individuals associated with the accused.

⚠️ The complainant also reports that private communications were deleted after the accused accessed the complainant’s phone, raising serious concerns of possible evidence tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction.

🔥 If Bhutanese men and women cannot even sign anonymously today, then we should not be surprised tomorrow when our daughters and sisters are harmed and authorities dismiss it as “a relationship” or “an affair,” as if intimidation, coercion, and abuse are excusable.

The complainant also reports months of coordinated defamation and false narratives by individuals linked to the accused, before and after case registration. These include claims of “money motive,” labeling the complainant a “home wrecker” and “gold digger,” attempting to associate her name with other men, circulating photos falsely claiming they were of the complainant, and alleging that the complaint was filed because she was “disposed of” or “dumped.” The complainant states these allegations are entirely false, unsupported, and constitute victim-blaming narratives intended to discredit her. The complainant states she has no loans, and has provided proof to authorities that she spent her own money and has been financially independent for years, while the Home Minister allegedly has loans amounting to crores and huge monthly EMIs. The complainant challenges the accused and his supporters to produce lawful proof that the accused ever gave her money.

The formal complaint was filed on 29 October. Prior to this, in mid-October, while communication between the parties was still ongoing, the complainant sent a written message directly accusing the accused of rape. This evidence has been submitted to authorities. The complainant states this timeline clearly demonstrates that the allegation preceded any alleged “rejection” narrative.

The complainant further specifically requested that law enforcement conduct a forensic examination of the accused’s phone, as she had confronted him regarding the allegation numerous times over an 18-month period. These repeated confrontations were the result of trauma and distress following the incident, not retaliation, financial motive, or personal grievance.

The complainant has consistently stated that, prior to the alleged assault, the accused represented that his marriage had already broken down. She maintains that immediately after the alleged assault, he again stated that he was filing for divorce the following week. In the available video recording, the complainant is heard questioning these prior representations, and the accused affirms them, including swearing on religious deities. These recordings were prepared for submission during the review process; however, the complainant was not contacted to provide this material before the review was concluded.

The complainant states these false narratives are bizarre and malicious character assassination attempts carried out while she remained quiet and followed lawful procedures.

These are tactics used to save face and silence complainants. The complainant refuses to be silenced.

The complainant states that she has followed lawful procedures throughout and cooperated fully with authorities. After the case was finally forwarded to the OAG, the complainant remains awaiting written reasons and legal provisions supporting any decision to return, close, or decline prosecution. The verbal reasons reportedly conveyed do not appear to reflect clear legal grounding.

⚠️ If such reasoning is accepted, it sends a dangerous message that intimidation, harassment, stalking, defamation, coercion, illegal recording, and sexual abuse can be excused or dismissed simply by labeling it a “relationship” or “affair.”

⚖️ If Bhutan’s justice system cannot transparently investigate serious allegations involving a senior public official, public trust will collapse and Bhutan’s international credibility will be damaged.

The complainant has formally submitted a letter to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) requesting written reasons and legal provisions relied upon, and has also notified the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). If due process and justice are denied, the complainant reserves the right to seek review through appropriate national and international mechanisms, including relevant UN and human rights accountability channels, as well as Bhutan’s international governance and development stakeholders concerned with transparency, rule of law, and institutional integrity.

⚖️ No one is above the law. 🇧🇹

🇧🇹 Palden Drukpa Gyalo!

✅ THE ISSUE — DETAILS BELOW

 A serious complaint involving allegations of sexual assault, deception, intimidation, and abuse of authority has reportedly been filed against Bhutan’s Home Minister.

Since the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) falls under the Home Ministry, this raises major concerns of conflict of interest, institutional influence, and lack of independence in investigation and prosecution.

The complainant has reportedly submitted substantial evidence to authorities, including 8 audio recordings, written communications, and other supporting materials. In addition, extensive evidence (approximately 80 items) has reportedly been submitted regarding harassment, stalking, intimidation, and defamation by an associated individual.

Despite this, online harassment and intimidation reportedly continue. A Bhutanese individual believed to be residing in Perth, Australia, who has publicly expressed support for the accused, has claimed online that he possesses “evidence” against the complainant and has indicated an intention to release it publicly. The complainant has further been informed that this individual may be related to the accused’s spouse, raising serious concerns of coordinated intimidation and misuse of private material. This appears linked to the same private audio material the complainant has repeatedly raised concerns about to the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP).

The complainant therefore requests that the handling of her case be formally reviewed. The complainant states she submitted written requests for reopening directly to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and the Officer Commanding (OC), but the case was reportedly reopened and the sexual assault case registered nearly two months later only after the complainant met the outgoing Chief of Police, who then agreed to proceed.

The complainant raises serious concerns regarding accountability. It is deeply alarming that such a basic investigative step, immediately confiscating and securing the accused’s device despite repeated threats, was reportedly not done at the outset, including on 27 September when the complaint was initially registered. The complainant questions why the accused’s device was not immediately confiscated, why forensic examination was not promptly conducted despite repeated warnings about the risk of misuse, and why verbal assurances were accepted without proper verification. The complainant also seeks clarification as to why the reopening and registration of the case was delayed for nearly two months despite repeated written submissions.

The complainant further reserves her full legal rights, including the right to initiate legal proceedings within her jurisdiction against concerned officers and institutions should any private material be released publicly due to negligence, mishandling, or failure to safeguard evidence and protect the complainant.

When allegations involve a senior public official, the integrity of the justice system must be protected. Silence, delay, and lack of transparency damage public trust and discourage victims from reporting.

This petition calls for due process, independence, and accountability, so that Bhutan’s justice system is respected and women are not silenced through intimidation.

YOU CAN SIGN ANONYMOUSLY ‘Hide my name’ or 'unchecking' the display name box, on Change.org. We are counting on YOU - because silence protects wrongdoers, and courage protects the future.

✅ WHAT WE WANT / DEMANDS
 We call upon the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), National Commission for Women and Children (NCWC), RENEW Bhutan, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Members of Parliament, and the Opposition Party of Bhutan to ensure the following:

1. The Home Minister should resign immediately on moral and ethical grounds, and must not exert any authority or influence over the Royal Bhutan Police, the OAG, or any investigative process, in order to uphold Bhutan’s national image and protect public trust in law enforcement and the judiciary. This is especially critical because law enforcement falls under the Home Ministry, and the complainant has reported months of ongoing online harassment and coordinated false narratives allegedly linked to the accused’s family/supporters, which undermines public confidence and victim safety.

2. Independent review of all submitted evidence, including audio recordings, digital harassment material, and forensic evidence, with proper chain of custody and preservation.

3. The government should permit an independent review mechanism, including international experts, to ensure transparency and public trust where allegations involve senior officials and political leadership.

4. Written disclosure of the outcome of any forensic examination reportedly conducted on seized devices, including the accused spouse’s phone, and whether any illegal recording, stalking, or evidence distribution was confirmed. This should also include clarification on whether any documents referenced in the complaint (including an alleged forged-signature document relating to government land reportedly mentioned by the accused) were retrieved, preserved, and independently examined.

5. Investigation into intimidation, retaliation, online harassment, and any interference with justice, including smear campaigns targeting the complainant.

6. Independent review of the handling of this case by the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) and concerned officers, including delays in case registration, delays in reopening despite written submissions to the SSP and OC, and any failure to promptly safeguard devices and evidence. Accountability must be ensured for any negligence or mishandling.

7. Written transparency on the status of the case(s), including clear legal reasons for any decision to return, close, or decline prosecution.

8. Protection and support mechanisms for complainants so that victims are not pressured into silence.
 

Bhutan must uphold the principle that no one is above the law, and that women who report serious allegations will be treated with fairness, dignity, and protection.

✅ WHO IS THIS PETITION ADDRESSED TO?

To:

• Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
• Royal Bhutan Police (RBP)
• Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
• National Commission for Women and Children (NCWC)
• RENEW Bhutan
• Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC)
• Members of Parliament (National Assembly & National Council)
• Opposition Party of Bhutan

✅ I urge every Bhutanese citizen to sign this petition, especially Bhutanese women who may know of other vulnerable women, fathers of daughters, brothers of sisters, and men who claim to respect their mothers. If we stay silent today, we are telling every victim tomorrow that power and politics matter more than truth. Women cannot continue to be bullied, smeared, and silenced through intimidation and false narratives. Speaking up takes courage, but silence enables injustice. This is not politics, this is the dignity of Bhutanese women, the credibility of our justice system, and the future of our nation.

His Majesty The King has repeatedly emphasised the importance of accountability and the need to expose wrongdoing so that wrongdoers do not repeat such actions. In that spirit, this petition calls for transparency, justice, and institutional integrity, so that no victim is silenced and no wrongdoer feels protected by power.

Do Bhutanese women still feel protected when the Home Minister who oversees law enforcement has had a sexual assault case registered against him, with evidence submitted to authorities, while his relatives/supporters openly harass, defame, and spread false narratives as if intimidation is their right?

The complainant has also stated that it reportedly took nearly two months for the case to be formally registered, raising serious concerns about delay, discouragement, and institutional accountability.

Justice requires transparency. Accountability requires courage. May truth prevail. May justice prevail. Palden Drukpa Gyalo. 🇧🇹

📌 IMPORTANT: You can sign anonymously by selecting ‘Hide my name’ (by unchecking the box that displays your name). (Please sign first before reading below. Every signature matters.)

 

 

 

 

 

—————————————

APPENDIX: Additional IMPORTANT Questions below

—————————————

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS (FOR TRANSPARENCY)

Q1: A sexual assault case is reportedly registered against the Home Minister. Case numbers reportedly registered with RBP are 171/2025 and 251/2025. Since the RBP falls under the Home Ministry, has the Home Minister formally stepped aside? Or is the accused still overseeing the investigative institution?

Q2: Is it morally acceptable for the Home Minister to remain in office after facing a serious sexual assault allegation? Why is there no accountability or public transparency? Can Bhutanese women be expected to trust, respect, and bow down to a law enforcement minister accused in such a case?

Q3: The complainant reportedly submitted multiple forms of evidence to the RBP for forwarding to the OAG, including 8 audio clips and other supporting materials. In these recordings, the Home Minister is allegedly heard apologizing when confronted about wrongdoing, warning about reputational harm, and expressing fear of job loss. The complainant also states that on 30 Nov, the Home Minister allegedly offered to make it a “relationship” if she withdrew the complaint, which she refused. In the related harassment case involving the accused’s spouse, the complainant reportedly submitted around 80 pieces of evidence. Why is this not being treated as a criminal matter and a pattern of intimidation and silencing? Or are criminal offences excusable when the accused is the Home Minister?

Q4: The complainant has reportedly informed authorities that the Home Minister allegedly stated he forged signatures related to government land and claimed he was being blackmailed at home by his second wife. Have these serious allegations been independently investigated?

Q5: Is threatening to release a woman’s private photos/audio, stalking, and defamation not a criminal offence under Bhutanese law if you are related to the Home Minister? Does power override justice?

Q6. When the complainant lodged a harassment complaint against the accused spouse, who allegedly threatened twice to release private audio/photos online, did police immediately seize the accused’s phone/device for forensic examination and evidence preservation? Or was the complainant pressured to withdraw before any proper investigation even began? In similar cases involving Bhutanese citizens, would verbal assurances be accepted and the accused allowed to walk free or would they be detained and prosecuted under the law?

Q7. When the complainant later submitted a cognizable offence complaint against the Home Minister to the jurisdiction police station, why was there delay in registering the case and calling the accused for questioning? Why was the accused’s device not secured immediately to prevent deletion, tampering, or destruction of evidence?

Q8: Supporters keep pushing a “money motive” narrative. Yet it is alleged the Home Minister himself claimed he has property loans, personal loans, overdues, and huge monthly EMIs amounting to crores. The complainant reportedly has no loans and has provided proof to authorities that she has been financially secure for years, and spent her own money. The complainant states she has not depended on anyone for money for more than a decade, and finds these claims bizarre and clearly defamatory.

The accused spouse has also reportedly addressed and discussed the complainant’s submitted police complaint in a public online rant, publicly claiming that she has “a lot of money.” If the accused and spouse claim they are wealthy and financially secure, why do they not publicly sign a sworn affidavit declaring their financial position, including any personal loans, property loans, overdues, and liabilities and make such a declaration public to support their repeated claims and end the speculation? The complainant is ready to do the same.

Why have the accused and their supporters failed to produce tax returns, which in Bhutan would clearly show their declared income and property loan payments  to support these repeated public claims? Why is the public being fed contradictory stories of “she wanted money” while the accused allegedly struggles with massive debts and huge monthly EMIs? So who exactly was after whose money? If money was truly the motive, why could their alleged wealth not buy the complainant’s silence?

Q9: The complainant states evidence exists, including audio recordings and messages where the accused allegedly says “no one will believe you.” Will the government allow an independent review of all evidence to ensure transparency and public trust?

Q10: It is alleged the Home Minister showed the complainant documents purported to belong to the Prime Minister and repeatedly claimed “police are under me” and that he is the PM’s favourite. Has the PMO investigated this alleged abuse of power and misuse of confidential documents?

Q11: In the related harassment case involving the accused’s spouse, the complainant reportedly submitted around 80 pieces of evidence and was informed that the accused’s phone/device was sent for forensic examination. The accused spouse reportedly gave assurances to the RBP that she deleted the illegally obtained audio and also signed a good character certificate/undertaking. If so, where is the forensic report today, what were the findings, and why was the accused not held accountable when she allegedly continued the same harassment and smear campaign afterward? What consequences did she face for violating her undertaking, or are such offences excusable when the accused is linked to the Home Minister?

Q12: Has the investigation checked whether there are any previous complaints of a similar nature, as part of standard procedure?

Q13: Why is the Prime Minister silent? What action has the PMO taken to ensure this serious matter is investigated independently and without political influence?

Q14: Under Bhutan’s Penal Code, consent is not established simply because there was communication, familiarity, or prior contact. Has the government ensured that the concept of “consent” is being correctly applied under Bhutanese law, rather than allowing public narratives like “affair gone wrong” to override legal definitions of sexual assault?

Q15: For months, the Home Minister has continued representing Bhutan in official national and international events despite the registered case and submitted evidence. Why did the Prime Minister’s Office not take precautionary action to safeguard Bhutan’s credibility and public trust?

Q16: If the OAG has returned or closed the case(s), should the OAG not be legally required to provide written reasons citing the specific Penal Code provisions relied upon? Is “affair gone wrong” an acceptable legal basis to dismiss allegations of sexual assault, intimidation, and abuse of authority? This is not an “affair gone wrong.” This is deception gone wrong, intimidation gone wrong, and silencing gone wrong.The complainant states she was repeatedly misled and delayed through false assurances and manipulation, while the accused pressured her with threats of reputational harm, job loss, and statements such as “no one will believe you” and “police are under me.” The complainant further states that the accused became hostile after realizing the matter had been reported to police and he was exposed to questioning and public scrutiny. When the complainant refused to remain silent and reported harassment and defamation to police, the accused allegedly attempted to reframe the matter as a “relationship issue,” as if consent existed from the start. After that, the complainant states the spouse and supporters escalated smear campaigns, defamation, stalking, and intimidation.

This is precisely why the complainant pursued lawful channels, repeatedly submitted formal complaint letters, requested reopening and registration of the case(s), and cooperated with police despite intrusive questioning, because she believed the public was being deliberately misled through false narratives while the victim was being portrayed as the wrongdoer.

The complainant states she provided documentary evidence contradicting the defamatory narratives being circulated online. Were the accused and supporters ever required to provide any proof for their public allegations, or were such defamatory claims allowed to continue without accountability? How is this fair, and what legal protection exists for a complainant facing ongoing public intimidation and defamation?

Q17: Why are relatives/supporters of the accused running an online smear campaign calling it “affair gone wrong” and “money motive” while using abusive slurs?Will authorities investigate intimidation of a complainant and interference with justice, or is the complainant expected to stay silent while facing continuous defamation and harassment? The complainant challenges the accused and his supporters to prove, through lawful court process, that the accused ever gave her money or financially supported her, as repeatedly claimed in ongoing defamatory narratives. If such claims are true, why has no documentary evidence been produced (bank transfers, receipts, property records, or financial statements) to support this allegation?