Control Policy Level Corruption

Two corruption-related amendment Bills currently under discussion in the Lower House of parliament highlighted the issue of filing corruption lawsuits within five years after having knowledge of any incident of corruption. Another provision states individuals should not face suspension from their positions immediately upon the lodging of corruption cases against them is also being debated.

However, many rapped these provisions, especially the five-year cap as it might allow many corrupt officials and politicians to avoid prison after the expiry of five years from the date of misconduct. As the House of Representatives’ State Affairs and Good Governance Committee works to finalise Bills amending the Corruption Prevention Act 2002 and the Commission for Investigation into Abuse of Authority Act 2019, the debate over whether to impose statutes of limitations has taken centre stage. Several parliamentarians, civil society activists, and media outlets have encouraged concerned parties to remove the five-year restriction from the bill and encouraged authorities to develop a mechanism to prosecute corrupt individuals even after they have retired from government or public service.

Growing corruption cases 

Meanwhile, demonstrating his commitment to curb corruption, Prime Minister Oli, who took office for the fourth time on July 15, 2024, claimed that he would not indulge in corruption and would let nobody be involved in any acts of irregularity. Previously, he stated he would not want to see the face of a corrupt man. Despite the commitments from high-profile leaders and political parties, curbing corruption looks to be a troublesome issue in the country. With Nepal already ranking higher on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (TI) and claims of widespread corruption in several sectors, any tolerance towards corruption charges would jeopardise the country’s attempts to enhance governance.

The fact that Nepal is ranked 108th out of 180 nations on the corruption perception index is disheartening as it indicates the state’s failure to curb irregularities. Nepal’s situation is far from satisfactory, with corruption occurring in different sectors, including politics, bureaucracy, trade, and the judiciary. It may be worthwhile to note that Nepal’s neighbours, India and China, were 93rd and 76th, respectively, while Bangladesh is placed at 149, Pakistan 133, Afghanistan 162, Bhutan 24, and the Maldives 93.

In Nepal, politicians, government officials, and powerful individuals frequently abuse their positions of power, resulting in widespread irregularities and a lack of ethics and transparency. The restoration of democracy in the 1990 saw a sharp increase in corruption, and it further expanded following the 2006 popular movement. Nowadays, many claim that corruption in the country takes place at the policy level, meaning powerful individuals create policies to suit their designs to cause losses to the state. Interestingly, parliamentarians cutting across all parties are least concerned about raising and debating on policy level misconduct, which should not be the case.

Many argue that the regulations prohibiting the anti-graft body, CIAA, from taking action against all forms of corruption resulted in a significant increase in corruption incidences in Nepal. Based on the legislation, the anti-graft commission is unable to investigate corruption taking place by manipulating policies. In our country, policy flaws have been the primary cause of several forms of corruption. One of such flaws stems from cabinet decisions, which do not come under the CIAA’s jurisdiction. High-level politicians and bureaucrats utilise their positions and cabinet decisions for financial benefits, causing losses to the nation. In the meantime, any acts of corruption taking place in the army and judiciary do not fall into the CIAA’s domain. 

To provide an example of how deep corruption runs here, we can turn our attention to last year when authorities imprisoned more than 33 people, including prominent political leaders and former ministers, in connection with the Bhutanese refugee case. Cooperative fund scandals allegedly committed by leaders like Rabi Lamichhane, corruption in acquiring health equipment during the COVID-19 epidemic, the Maoist insurgent camp corruption case, the Nepal Oil Corporation property acquisition case, the Lalita Niwas and Giribhandhu Tea Estate land controversy, and the Ncell tax evasion case have hit headlines and dominated national debates in recent times. 

Another notable case featured former tax authorities such as Chudamani Sharma, former director of the Inland Revenue Department, chairman of the Tax Settlement Commission Lumba Dhoj Mahat, and member Umesh Prasad Dhakal in which CIAA charged them of embezzling Rs 10.02 billion each, and the Special Court convicted them. The CIAA, which is in charge of investigating corruption and abuse of authority cases in Nepal, received 28,643 complaints in a single year, with 6,516 filed in the fourth quarter alone. During the third quarter of fiscal year 2080/81, it filed 59 charge sheets in the special court, involving 946 persons and claims totalling more than Rs 4.32 billion of embezzlement. The allegations included bribery, loss of public property, illicit profit-making, and income leakage.

Unsatisfactory outcomes 

Despite the government’s efforts to tackle corruption, the outcomes have been unsatisfactory because of poor execution and a lack of political will. It is absolutely crucial to enhance the CIAA’s independence and ensure it operates without any political interference. Corruption in Nepal has serious economic, political, and social consequences. It causes inefficiencies, misallocation of public resources, and decreased foreign investment, while corruption at the political level erodes public trust in the governance system, undermines the rule of law, and can lead to instability. At the social level, it worsens inequality and social services and degrades moral standards.

Nepal requires institutional strengthening, transparency promotion, and establishing a culture of integrity in both public and private organisations for fighting corruption. Our parliamentarians will do a lot better in curbing corruption if they opt for no time limit on prosecuting corrupt individuals. Meanwhile, policymakers should work to fight policy-level corruption, which is a serious issue. Our influential people frequently use policies and cabinet decisions to commit irregularities, avoiding punishment because they are not subjects to the anti-graft body’s jurisdiction.

(Upadhyay is a former managing editor of this daily.)