KATHMANDU, June 29: The Finance Ministry is often regarded as one of the most powerful seats in Nepal’s government. Along with the Home Ministry, it remains one of the most sought-after portfolios, carrying the authority to shape economic policies, control the national treasury and influence the country’s financial direction.
But the ministry’s history tells a troubling story. Many who have occupied the finance minister’s chair have found themselves surrounded by controversy — facing allegations ranging from financial misconduct and budget leaks to policy decisions allegedly influenced by powerful business interests.
What once revolved around ideological debates and policy disagreements has increasingly shifted toward questions of personal integrity, financial discipline and institutional transparency. Analysts say the recurring controversies are not isolated incidents but reflect deeper weaknesses in Nepal’s political-economic system, where vested interests often find space to influence decision-making.
A former finance minister said the highly secretive and centralized nature of the budget-making process creates room for manipulation.
“The budget-making process is so confidential and controlled by a limited number of officials and the minister that there is enough space for decisions to be influenced according to personal interests,” the former minister said.
However, former Finance Minister Surendra Pandey argues that not every finance minister has been controversial.
“Not all finance ministers have faced controversy, but it is not a good sign when questions are raised in parliament even on small issues regarding the finance minister’s role. A finance minister must remain careful,” he said.
Referring to current Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle, Pandey said parliamentary questions against him were not a positive development.
“Even if he did not intentionally do anything wrong, it is not good that questions have been raised in parliament,” he said.
The latest major episode in this long-running chain of controversies is the arrest of CPN-UML Vice Chairman and former Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel. Following a request from the Department of Money Laundering Investigation (DoMLI), Paudel was arrested from Surkhet on June 22 and brought to Kathmandu, where he remains in custody.
Paudel is being investigated over allegations of acquiring suspicious wealth and shares while holding public office. He has been linked to alleged financial irregularities involving businessman Deepak Bhatta and Shanker Group.
CJ summons 9 High Court judges over suspected deviations
During his tenure as finance minister, allegations emerged that Paudel used his position and influence to pressure a businessman into selling shares of his company to Deepak Bhatta’s company at a lower price. In return, he allegedly promised policy-level benefits from the government.
The investigation has reportedly found that three such commitments were fulfilled while Paudel was serving as finance minister.
The Special Court has allowed authorities to continue keeping Paudel in custody for investigation. He came under the DoMLI’s scrutiny over allegations of policy-level corruption and suspicious financial transactions during his time in power.
Paudel’s case has once again revived a broader debate over why finance ministers repeatedly become associated with controversies, particularly around budget-making and financial decisions.
Nepal’s parliamentary history is filled with similar episodes.
On July 26, 1995, during a House of Representatives meeting, UML lawmaker Krishna Gopal Shrestha presented documents claiming that then Finance Minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat had $46,768 deposited in a bank account in New York, USA.
The opposition accused Mahat of illegally keeping money in a foreign bank and disrupted parliament. Mahat later admitted the account belonged to him and resigned on moral grounds on August 1.
In 2010, then Finance Minister Bharat Mohan Adhikari faced criticism after the full text of the budget appeared on the Finance Ministry’s website before he had completed presenting it in parliament.
The opposition argued that parliamentary privilege and budget confidentiality had been violated, leading to the formation of an investigation committee.
The seven-member committee led by Nepali Congress Chief Whip Laxman Ghimire held Adhikari responsible and submitted its report on July 22, 2010. However, Adhikari did not resign. After the Jhalanath Khanal-led government collapsed on August 14, the issue gradually disappeared.
A similar controversy emerged in 2016 when details of the budget, including its size and programs, appeared in newspapers before Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel presented it in parliament.
Former finance minister and NC lawmaker Mahat accused the Finance Ministry of breaching financial discipline. Following opposition pressure, a nine-member parliamentary committee led by NC leader Ramesh Lekhak was formed to investigate the leak.
The committee concluded that information had been leaked from the Finance Ministry before the budget was presented and said the finance minister should take moral responsibility.
However, after the KP Sharma Oli-led government collapsed and Pushpa Kamal Dahal became prime minister, the issue lost momentum. Committee coordinator Lekhak later joined the Dahal government as physical infrastructure and transport minister.
In 2022, then Finance Minister Janardan Sharma faced another major controversy after allegations surfaced that an unauthorized person — a former under-secretary — had entered the ministry the night before the budget presentation and influenced tax rates in favor of certain business groups.
The allegations involved changes in customs and excise duties affecting raw materials used by wire and steel industries.
Following widespread criticism, Sharma resigned and faced a parliamentary investigation.
The 11-member committee led by former lawmaker Laxman Lal Karna later cleared Sharma, concluding that the allegations could not be verified. Based on CCTV footage and statements from officials involved in budget preparation, the committee said the accusations were not proven.
The report cited technical problems with CCTV footage, with officials stating that a mouse had damaged the wire.
The controversy surrounding finance ministers has not ended there. Opposition parties have also accused current Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle of leaking information during budget preparation regarding changes in customs and excise duties on electric vehicles, allegedly benefiting certain importers.
Wagle has rejected the allegations as baseless.
“If you bring evidence, I am ready to stand in the dock. People make claims of billions and trillions without proof. If Swarnim Wagle has done even a two-rupee wrongdoing — not two billion or two trillion — I am ready to quit not only as finance minister or lawmaker but also public life. This is my challenge,” he said.
Finance ministers have also frequently clashed with the central bank over economic policy.
While finance ministers often push for lower interest rates, increased credit flow and flexible monetary policies to boost growth, Nepal Rastra Bank governors focus on inflation control and financial stability.
The conflict between former Finance Minister Janardan Sharma and then Nepal Rastra Bank Governor Maha Prasad Adhikari remains one of the most visible examples.
Accusing the governor of leaking economic information and refusing to cooperate with government policies, the Cabinet suspended Adhikari on April 8, 2022, following Sharma’s recommendation. The Supreme Court later overturned the suspension.
Analysts say the repeated controversies surrounding finance ministers point to deeper structural problems.
In Nepal, ministerial appointments are often shaped by factional politics and power-sharing calculations rather than expertise and integrity. In some cases, finance ministers are appointed with backing from business groups or intermediaries with specific interests, creating conflicts from the very beginning.
Instead of focusing only on broader economic priorities, ministers often face pressure to support party funding, prepare for elections and satisfy the interests of those who helped secure their political position.
Economic and political analysts argue that protecting ministers involved in past controversies has created a perception that misconduct carries little consequence.
They say budgets have increasingly shifted away from building a productive economy toward distribution-focused programs aimed at political benefits, pushing finance ministers into policy disputes.
According to analysts, the economic debates during the era of Nepal’s first finance minister Subarna Shamsher — which were once centered on policy and ideology — have now transformed into concerns over policy deviations, financial indiscipline and systemic failures in maintaining confidentiality.
-1200x560-1774606010.webp)
