Government’s Transparency Test

The recent disclosure of asset details by members of the new Cabinet has triggered widespread public debate over the sources of their wealth. The issue has gained further traction across social media and news platforms, particularly after revelations that Prime Minister Balendra Shah and his ministers possess, compared to the average Nepali citizen, significant holdings in cash, land, vehicles, shares, and precious metals. Public scrutiny intensified after a group of students staged a demonstration demanding clarity on how such assets were accumulated. The protestors called for a thorough examination of whether the declared wealth is backed by legitimate income sources. Similar concerns have since echoed across society, digital platforms and mainstream media. It is important to acknowledge that Nepali society often tends to view the wealth of public office-holders with suspicion, frequently equating visible assets with illicit earnings. Such generalisations are neither fair nor accurate. Not all wealth is unaccounted or unlawful, and therefore the assets declared by the current Cabinet cannot be presumed illegal without evidence.

At the same time, scrutiny of public officials is both natural and necessary in a democratic system. Holding public office inevitably reduces the boundary of privacy, and public interest in the conduct and finances of ministers is legitimate. Consequently, raising questions about asset declarations cannot be dismissed as unwarranted interference. However, the credibility of asset disclosure regimes in Nepal has long been a matter of concern. Declarations submitted as legal formalities are often difficult to verify independently. In the past, explanations such as inheritance or dowry have been used to justify holdings in precious metals and other assets, sometimes without sufficient supporting evidence, raising legitimate doubts. Given this context, the responsibility now lies with the ministers themselves to dispel public suspicion. Since the disclosures were made by the office-holders, they must also provide clear, verifiable explanations of how these assets were acquired. This includes demonstrating whether income was self-earned, whether appropriate taxes were paid, and in cases of inherited property, when and how ownership was transferred.

Failure to provide credible and documented explanations risks deepening public mistrust and fostering perceptions of continuity with past practices. Such erosion of trust can quickly translate into broader dissatisfaction, as history has shown that public frustration can escalate rapidly when accountability is perceived to be lacking. Former Finance Minister Rameshore Khanal has suggested practical measures to enhance transparency, noting that income statements filed with the Inland Revenue Department and tax clearance records offer a more reliable and verifiable basis for assessing financial integrity than self-declared asset lists alone. In this light, it would be appropriate for Prime Minister Shah and all Cabinet members to substantiate their asset disclosures with documentary proof. Transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a cornerstone of public trust. Ultimately, those who seek the authority to govern must first demonstrate the credibility to account for their own wealth.