KATHMANDU: Ministers residing in Singha Durbar would sometimes say, “I will open the file.” Those files refer to corruption, and the body that investigates corruption is the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). Not the government. The Constitution and the law have given this authority to the CIAA. Complaints are lodged there. Investigations are conducted from there. The right to file a case also belongs to it.

Despite these provisions, why does Singha Durbar repeatedly use the language of threat by saying it will open files? Can a corruption file be opened just because some individual from somewhere else desires it? Something is wrong somewhere in this. What does this suggest? It appears that the minds of the top politicians K.P. Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal are covered by the cloud of corruption.

When politicians repeatedly make speeches about opening the files on cases like Giri Bandhu and the Maoist Combatants’ Cantonment, among others, why doesn’t the CIAA speak up? Why can’t it say that investigating corruption is not the government’s job? Why can’t it say that it is inappropriate to speak on a matter over which they have no authority? The government should be reminded why it must say it will open the file of a specific event and person while being in power. If they don’t comply, the commissioners have the right to take action for the abuse of authority. However, they cannot say so.

Those who are in the CIAA consider their appointment a favor from the leaders. That’s why they are working to protect those who appointed them. What this shows is that the original file lies with those who sit in Singha Durbar. It seems they give the instruction to open this file and not to open that file. Otherwise, how would Singha Durbar know which file being investigated in Tangaal (CIAA’s central office) should be opened and which should not?

It appears that there is an unwritten agreement between the appointers and the appointed. “We will give you the job. Don’t arrest us. Arrest and file cases against a couple of Kharidars (non-gazetted second-class officials) or Nayab Subbas (non-gazetted first-class officials), and keep your job.” The commissioners are sitting there following that agreement.

Otherwise, what is the obstacle to investigating corruption? Where wrongdoing has occurred, why is the CIAA unable to proceed based on the law? Those who receive appointments should ideally think and say, “I was qualified, and you appointed me based on my qualifications; now I must work for the nation.” If they were to do this, the CIAA would be capable of controlling corruption. However, they do not work that way. This is how the country has deteriorated.

Weak investigation

The CIAA is not conducting a profound investigation. If they were to seriously investigate and submit a charge sheet, they should win the case. How can the court decide when it doesn’t find any evidence during its verdict? Simply filing a case by claiming a large amount based on only a superficial investigation is not enough to prove guilt. Since a low-key charge sheet is submitted in the name of an investigation, how can the court find the accused guilty when it sees nothing during the verdict? It is forced to acquit the defendant. Then, questions are raised against the court itself.

Suppose a veterinary doctor is placed in Bir Hospital, then what will happen? Can he treat people? This is what has happened at the CIAA. Qualified people were not appointed. Someone cannot investigate irregularities in violation of the Public Procurement Act just because they were a former secretary. To look into irregularities in bridge construction, knowledge corresponding to that is required. How much cement to use? Where and how much steel to place? What should be the thickness and depth? What should the quality be? One must be knowledgeable about such things. If there is no information on this matter, how can he create a charge sheet claiming irregularity? How can the court find guilt in such an investigation? If expert individuals were appointed, they could scrutinize everything.

The CIAA is not conducting a profound investigation. If they were to seriously investigate and submit a charge sheet, they should win the case.

Incompetent people are working when experts should be investigating and submitting the charge sheet. The condition of the government attorney who debates based on such a charge sheet is also similar. Would an attorney general who follows the party flag and party directives allow his subordinate employees to argue cases without pressure? Because the government itself appoints the attorney general. That person is close to the ruling party. He looks at his party’s flag rather than the nation’s.

The Attorney General has control over all cases. This is why questions are sometimes raised about investigations conducted by the government. The latest example of this is the case involving Lila Ballabh Adhikari, the former minister for internal affairs and law of Koshi Province. He traveled as far as Japan after being enticed by a middleman. No case was filed against him, but a case was filed against the victims who were defrauded by the middleman. Adhikari was acquitted because he was affiliated with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), abbreviated CPN (UML), and the government and the Attorney General were also from the CPN (UML).

In the Fake Bhutanese Refugee case, why were Nepali Congress leader Arzu Rana Deuba and others, including Oli’s advisor and former Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, not dragged into the investigation? The main point is that the parties showed an intention to protect their people without even investigating them. This is why those involved in corruption have been walking freely. There are many such incidents. This has helped to further institutionalize corruption.

Now is also the time to change the evaluation of evidence. The court has only been doing the job of deciding the case. It must also enforce its verdict. It must be able to recover the amount decided by the verdict from the individuals found guilty.

Lack of political will

Curing corruption, which has become a chronic disease, requires political will and integrity. However, one of the objectives of the seven-point, eight-point, and other agreements the parties make when forming a government is to protect themselves from corruption investigations. Why do all parties fear as soon as there is talk of investigating corruption? They feel that they are also guilty because they are involved in one scandal or another. They are startled by the thought that they might also be investigated. If someone raises the slogan “Hang the corrupt!” the leaders clutch their throats.

In the Fake Bhutanese Refugee case, why were Nepali Congress leader Arzu Rana Deuba and others, including Oli’s advisor and former Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, not dragged into the investigation?

Nothing much needs to be done to control corruption; a good law must be created, and independent and qualified people must be appointed to the CIAA. However, corruption has increased because those in government act more as facilitators than as controllers.

Looking at an example from the Panchayat period (a political system in Nepal from 1961 to 1990 where a four-tiered, non-partisan system of government was controlled by the king, who banned political parties and established himself as an absolute monarch), the then-government appears to have been serious. At that time, there was a body called the Police on Special Duty. It worked to control corruption. However, it was unable to take statements from the Cabinet and employees above it. Seeing this, the then-king agreed to create the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority. It was believed that since independent individuals would sit in the CIAA, it would work independently.

The Corruption Prevention Act was issued after the royal takeover. The Special Police could file cases, but the CIAA was made the investigating body. The main source of corruption is the policy decisions made by the then Cabinet. The CIAA was established because a commission led by an independent individual with knowledge and information from all sectors was needed to control this. This body was given two tasks. If corruption had not yet occurred and was in the initial stages, it could immediately stop the improper conduct or actions identified as illegal. If it had gone beyond that and corruption had already occurred, it could file a case.

After the arrival of democracy, corruption entered this. Those who came into power started turning the CIAA into a center for recruiting their affiliates rather than people with specified qualifications. The act of bringing in controversial figures and setting aside retired employees occurred. The power to investigate improper conduct was abolished.

Incidents of people who had led the CIAA being involved in corruption started becoming public. Not only were cases filed against the then-Chief Commissioner Deep Basnyat and Commissioner Raj Narayan Pathak, but the Special Court also found them guilty. When the officials of the CIAA themselves were found guilty by the court, how could the work of controlling corruption take place? This is where things went wrong. The Supreme Court found Lokman Singh Karki unqualified for the appointment itself.

In India, the Aam Aadmi Party, led by Arvind Kejriwal, was born out of the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare. The Jan Lokpal Bill was the main slogan, but after Kejriwal himself was jailed on corruption charges, the Bharatiya Janata Party formed a new government in Delhi.

The CIAA was established because a commission led by an independent individual with knowledge and information from all sectors was needed to control corruption.

The CIAA was a good system in Nepal, but the parties recruited bad people. It was like raising a snake to kill the neighbor. A snake raised at home does not check if it is the neighbor’s before striking. It starts striking inside the house first. The same thing happened in the case of the CIAA. Because capable people arriving there would strike at them, the parties brought in people who would follow their instructions. They searched for controversial figures. The parties’ strategy of escaping the corruption they committed has always been successful with the help of those figures. How can a recruitment center work?

Specific qualifications are set for joining the CIAA. The qualifications for the commissioners were specified based on the areas where corruption occurs, but instead of qualified people, the job was handed over to those who complete the ritual formalities and are controversial.

What we have here is impurity/taint of assets, not money laundering control. Property tainting is being done rapidly. But why doesn’t the government take action against them? Impeachment was filed against the then-Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana on the charge of corruption while sitting in the Supreme Court. However, no investigation was conducted against him.

Our problem is that those who are supposed to control corruption are involved in corruption. We may not be able to do big things, but we can control corruption, right? That wasn’t even done.

The same kind of people have ruled Nepal for a long time. Oli, Deuba, and Dahal have been repeated and re-repeated as prime ministers. They did not give a chance to new people, and they still do not intend to give a chance to new leadership. It is certainly not right that the new generation cannot work according to a new vision and that we must sit and watch corruption increase due to governance by failed leaders.

(The presented article by former Supreme Court Justice K.C. is based on a conversation prior to the Gen Z protest in Nepal—Editor-in-Chief)