header banner
Editorial
#Editorial

From Promise to Pause

Missed anti-corruption deadlines and opaque asset disclosures are eroding public trust in governance and exposing deep structural limits to accountability in Nepal.
alt=
Representative Photo
By REPUBLICA

The deadline for creating an asset inquiry committee within 15 days has been missed with no updates. The delay has not been explained as the accusations of corruption remain unresolved. The Giribandhu Tea Estate land transfer issue and a number of earlier accusations connected to various administrations' policy-level decisions are still being debated. There have been significant concerns raised by these incidents, but no definitive findings have been made. Because of current legislative constraints, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority is unable to look into decisions made at the Cabinet level. It is challenging to determine whether decisions made by the Cabinet collectively reflect abuse of power since existing laws protect such judgments. The present administration, headed by Balendra Shah, has said unequivocally that it would solve these issues. The creation of an asset inquiry committee including legal, financial, and investigative specialists was one of its 100-point reform agenda items. It was anticipated that the committee will examine prominent officials' and political leaders' riches over the last few decades. This action was seen to be crucial for enhancing accountability. But there was no palpable improvement by the deadline. A lack of preparation is demonstrated by missing the deadline. Setting up such a committee is indeed a difficult undertaking because it is responsible for looking into financial documents, confirming sources of income, and investigating those who now hold or have held positions of authority.



Related story

Trump says to 'permanently pause migration from all Third World...


Strong institutional support and political commitment are needed for this. In reality, maintaining such a commitment is frequently challenging. There hasn't been any significant follow-up action in Nepal; instead, the response has just been discussion in public. These worries have been heightened by the Home Minister's recent visit to the anti-graft organization. The sense of institutional independence may be impacted by such infrequent visits. It is anticipated that constitutional bodies will function independently of the executive branch. Meanwhile, the Balen administration has also come under fire when the PM himself and his ministers disclosed their assets. The new revelations—that cabinet members have considerable movable and immovable wealth—have sparked additional concerns rather than boosting trust in the government. Although a number of ministers seem to be quite wealthy, it's not always apparent what their sources of income are. Leaders lose credibility when they are unable to clearly explain their financial situation. In the meantime, we must remember that when anti-corruption pledges are not backed up by precise and reliable data, they become less effective.


The system's structure is another source of the issue that stops authorities in setting up probe committees. In Nepal, it is still challenging to look into corruption at higher levels. Legal authority and accountability are frequently diminished by political ties. There may be direct or indirect pressure on institutions that are supposed to conduct probe works autonomously. Even when investigations begin, they often do not reach outcomes that lead to accountability. Despite all hurdles, the administration must finish the mission it has already declared. It should establish the asset inquiry committee in an open way, specify its duties precisely, and give frequent reports on its progress. Detailed information about income sources and tax records should be included in asset reports. Additionally, amendment of laws is required. When there is a good cause to do so, the law should permit policy level decisions to be investigated. Not every decision made by the Cabinet should be unreviewable. Anti-corruption bodies such as the CIAA need to be free from political pressure to operate. This is essential to combat corruption. If promises are made, they must be carried out within the allotted period. Otherwise, imposing deadlines without taking any action would simply erode public trust in governance.

Related Stories
WORLD

Democrats demand investigation into Trump tariff p...

US-President-Donald-Trump_20200416085644.gif
WORLD

Trump announces 90-day pause on ‘reciprocal’ tarif...

DonaldTrumpimpeached_20191219095801.jpeg
WORLD

UN decides to temporarily pause USD cash assistanc...

United-Nations-4_20191212174357.jpg
My City

Marvel Pushes Pause On ‘Thunderbolts’ Production D...

MarvelStudios_20230526132324.jpg
WORLD

Russia-ordered ‘pause’ goes into effect east of Da...

Syrian_Truce.jpeg