KATHMANDU: The interim government led by Sushila Karki, formed amid the Gen Z movement, is under pressure to take some “bold” steps to curb corruption, one of the key issues raised by the movement. The main demand of the movement was to end corruption and establish good governance.

There was widespread curiosity about how the government would address the movement’s mandate. Questions arose whether a new mechanism would be created to control corruption, or whether the existing structure—the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA)—would be empowered to act more decisively.

Amid this interest and curiosity, a meeting took place on September 20 between Prime Minister Karki and CIAA Chief Commissioner Prem Kumar Rai. During the meeting, Rai expressed commitment to supporting the government’s good governance campaign.

The meeting between Karki and Rai reduced the likelihood that the interim government would establish a new body to investigate and take action against corruption. Given the presence of the CIAA, it would have been constitutionally challenging for the government to form a separate agency for investigating corruption cases.

After seizing power on February 1, 2005, then-King Gyanendra had formed the Royal Commission for Corruption Control on February 16 the same year, bypassing the constitution. The Supreme Court later deemed it illegal and dissolved it on February 13, 2006. Prime Minister Karki did not appear inclined to repeat such a mistake.

According to Transparency International, Nepal consistently ranks among countries with high levels of corruption.

According to the movement’s mandate, the question now is how strong a step the CIAA will take in investigating corruption. This concern arises because the CIAA, a constitutionally appointed body, has often been accused of turning a blind eye to major corruption cases involving high-profile political figures.

At the same time, there have been claims that the ruling parties have time and again used the CIAA to intimidate and undermine opposition leaders. Incidents where the CIAA failed to investigate corruption linked to senior party leaders—or showed little interest in advancing cases even when intervening—have reinforced the perception that the commission does not target “big fish.”

According to Transparency International, Nepal consistently ranks among countries with high levels of corruption. The organization’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) placed Nepal 107th out of 180 countries in terms of governance, scoring 34 out of 100.

Corruption cases remain pending, CIAA under scrutiny

In the past decade, there has been a significant rise in allegations of corruption against both current and former public officeholders. Complaints about increasing corruption during this period are widespread. However, despite public concern and expectations, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has shown little initiative in investigating irregularities involving those in public office. The CIAA’s annual report for the fiscal year 2024/25 shows that only two cases related to asset laundering were pursued throughout the year.

Factually, the CIAA appears to focus more on minor or procedural cases rather than investigating major officials holding public office. In this context, the question arises: how will the CIAA support the interim civil government formed on an anti-corruption mandate?

Legal expert Tikaram Bhattarai emphasizes that the government should work in coordination with constitutional commissions, and these bodies should assist the government.

CIAA spokesperson Rajendra Kumar Paudel stated, “If additional evidence emerges, it is not that past cases left pending by the commission will not be re-investigated. However, the CIAA has not yet convened a meeting to decide how to proceed.”

Legal expert Tikaram Bhattarai emphasizes that the government should work in coordination with constitutional commissions, and these bodies should assist the government.

He said, “The CIAA previously faced allegations of partisan bias and political retaliation. Now, with non-political individuals in power, the commission faces the challenge of defining itself by working impartially.”

A series of pending cases

There is a backlog of major cases left unresolved at the CIAA. Even in projects as prominent as the construction of the Supreme Court building—considered the ultimate seat of justice—allegations of corruption have surfaced.

On April 1,2021, a contract worth Rs 5.19 billion was signed with the Kalika–Samanantar JV to construct the Supreme Court building. Suspecting irregularities in the project, then Acting Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Karki wrote to the CIAA on July 15, 2022, highlighting approximately Rs 1 billion in alleged corruption and requesting appropriate action within 15 days. In his letter, he also suspected collusion involving former Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana and others in the irregularities during the building project.

CIAA fails to pursue detailed investigation, cases remain pending

However, the CIAA did not advance a detailed investigation. The construction company that received the contract on March 31, 2024 to complete the Supreme Court building is still working on the project.

After Chief Justice Karki retired, Hari Krishna Karki became Chief Justice but retired on August 5, 2023. On August 22, 2023, Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha assumed leadership of the Supreme Court. By the time Shrestha took charge, the CIAA had not resolved the issue; instead, the case was left pending on September 20, 2023.

The officials, including CIAA Chief Rai, had been appointed by the Constitutional Council during Oli and Rana’s tenure.

There were three reasons the CIAA kept the case pending. First, officials were uncertain about whether to intervene within the court. Second, political influence from then-Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher JBR played a role, as he was closely connected to KP Sharma Oli, then chairman of the CPN-UML. Third, the company involved in the Supreme Court building project was linked to a figure close to an UML leader, and it was believed that the case was not pursued to protect this company.

The officials, including CIAA Chief Rai, had been appointed by the Constitutional Council during Oli and Rana’s tenure. Despite understanding these factors, Karki applied pressure through her letter—but no action was taken.

Coordination in delay

The CIAA has consistently kept cases pending every year. In the last decade alone, 13 major cases left pending involved politicians and influential individuals connected to them. The practice of keeping high-profile corruption cases linked to political parties unresolved has eroded public trust in the CIAA. These pending cases raise questions about the commission’s role in controlling corruption.

Section 15, Subsection 12 of the CIAA Act, 1992 allows complaints to be kept pending. This provision gives the CIAA extraordinary authority, which has been criticized for frequent use. Rule 10 of the CIAA Regulations also grants the power to keep complaints pending.

According to spokesperson Rajendra Kumar Paudel, the CIAA often cites both the Act and the Regulations when keeping complaints pending. Not all complaints are left pending; only that where further investigation is deemed unnecessary after initial inquiry are kept pending.

Paudel says, “Not every complaint registered with the CIAA can undergo detailed investigation. Many complaints may be filed without evidence, due to personal grievances or other reasons. Cases that may warrant detailed investigation are pursued while others are left pending.”

According to Article 82 of the Constitution and rules approved by the Government of Nepal, questions regarding compliance with the division and performance of government functions cannot be raised in court.

He adds that if sufficient evidence is not found during preliminary inquiry, no investigation is conducted. However, if evidence emerges later, the case may be revived and filed.

According to Article 82 of the Constitution and rules approved by the Government of Nepal, questions regarding compliance with the division and performance of government functions cannot be raised in court. Consequently, the CIAA has not filed cases regarding activities carried out under these ministerial performance rules.

Pending CIAA cases raise concerns of manipulation and influence

However, former Special Court Chair Gauri Bahadur Karki argues that keeping cases pending is improper. He suggests that preventing full investigation and resolution of suspected corruption cases may involve various manipulations.

“One can publicly hear of temptations ranging from financial inducements to other types of influence,” he says. He emphasizes that in a legal state, constitutional bodies should remain independent and free from interference. Since the CIAA itself could act arbitrarily or have hidden financial motives, he argues that pending cases must be taken seriously.

According to the CIAA Annual Report for2024/25, out of 37,026 complaints registered, 17,130 cases were left pending. Additionally, 586 cases were kept pending with suggestions.

In 2023/24, 3,600 complaints were registered, of which 1,050 cases underwent detailed investigation. Only 201 cases were filed, while 825 were kept pending.

Over the past decade, the CIAA has kept 3,322 cases pending. Of the total 2,200 cases registered during this period, the pending cases included only 372 complaints specifically related to illegal acquisition of property.

CIAA Keeps Some Cases Suspended, Experts Stress Equal Accountability

The CIAA also keeps certain cases suspended along with leaving them pending. Cases are kept in suspension so that they can be reopened if evidence becomes available. Over the past 10 years, the CIAA has suspended 124 files. However, none of these suspended files have been revived.

In 2023/24, 3,600 complaints were registered, of which 1,050 cases underwent detailed investigation.

In recent years, the number of complaints left pending has increased, as reflected in the CIAA’s own annual reports. CIAA spokesperson Rajendra Kumar Paudel claims that as complaints rise, so do pending cases.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada emphasizes that corruption should not be exempted under the guise of policy decisions. He notes that the CIAA’s filing of a case against former Prime Minister Madhav Nepal in the Patanjali land case fell within its jurisdiction and set a precedent that all individuals involved in corruption must face accountability.

“No one is above the law, so everyone must be treated equally. If someone was previously exempted from cases due to influence, that must now be corrected,” Kathiwada said.