KATHMANDU, May 19: After the removal of unconstitutional provisions from the constitution, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has been unable to prevent irregularities committed under the guise of policy decisions.
As a result, one scandal after another is being uncovered only after investigations are conducted. In this context, the bill to amend the Commission for the investigation of abuse of authority Act,2048 (1991), which has reached its final stage in the House of Representatives' (HoR’s) State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, is being stalled due to political gain.
Although the subcommittee has recommended drafting a law to prevent the Council of Ministers from making decisions under the guise of policy, the issue remains stuck in the committee, and there are growing accusations that lawmakers are not taking the matter seriously enough in parliamentary sessions to create strong pressure from the House.
Legal expert Ram Narayan Bidari stated, “If the unconstitutional provision had not been removed, the CIAA could have intervened whenever it deemed a Cabinet decision inappropriate. It could have halted tenders, stopped procurement and sales—just like how the Supreme Court issues stay orders, the CIAA could have instructed, ‘This action must not proceed.’But now, it must investigate first and only register a case after confirming whether corruption occurred.”
HoR passes Appropriation Bill, 2021
With the aim of making good governance more effective, the amendment proposal put forward by the subcommittee led by Hridya Ram Thani, a committee member and Nepali Congress lawmaker, has introduced certain restrictions on policy decisions made by the Council of Ministers. According to the sub committee's report, “The CIAA shall investigate decisions that are made in favor of an individual or institution in a manner that goes against public policy. Furthermore, the CIAA shall also investigate decisions related to public procurement, except those made in accordance with public procurement laws.”
The provision also allows the CIAA to investigate decisions made by other bodies or officials that exceed their legal jurisdiction. The subcommittee concluded that its proposal effectively prevents the Council of Ministers from bypassing the law to make non-transparent decisions in public procurement and contracts that involve conflicts of interest.
Subcommittee coordinator Thani has stated that the subcommittee agreed to such provisions because there has been a growing tendency to take matters related to public procurement, contracts, national pride projects, and strategically important plans to the Council of Ministers solely as a means to evade investigation.
Decisions in cases such as the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate, the government land at Lalita Niwas, the purchase of wide-body aircraft, the misuse of Nepal Trust land, the leasing of land at Taragaun, the allocation of land beyond legal limits to Patanjali and its subsequent sale for housing plot development, and the TERAMOCS case, among others, were all made through the Council of Ministers.
The subcommittee unanimously finalized the report on the bill—including provisions stating that certain decisions would not be considered policy decisions—and submitted it to the State Affairs Committee on December 19. However, according to committee members, the bill has since stalled, primarily because the top leadership of the ruling parties, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, has expressed disagreement over including policy decisions within the CIAA’s jurisdiction.
Due to this, Committee Chair Ramhari Khatiwada has not been able to place the CIAA bill on the agenda for discussion, despite repeated requests from opposition lawmakers to do so. CPN (Maoist Centre) Chief Whip Hit Raj Pandey stated, “We have raised this issue in the committee, in Parliament, and even on the streets. The committee chair has not made any effort to bring this bill into the committee. He says it will soon be discussed, but it's been four months and it still hasn't happened.”
Congress leader Shyam Kumar Ghimire said that the matter was stalled due to disagreements on one or two issues. “There are preparations to make some revisions while explaining the policy decisions and discussions are ongoing regarding alternatives,” he said.
He also stated that the CIAA should not be above the government. Not all policy decisions can be made by the Cabinet alone. He added that discussions are taking place on this matter as well. Furthermore, he clarified that no one has been stopped from speaking in the House on this issue.
UML Whip Sunita Baral acknowledged that the UML did not raise its voice in the House regarding the CIAA Bill. She said, “Since we are in government leadership, we are also sensitive. It wouldn't be appropriate to only ask questions or apply pressure. That is why we may not have raised it much in the House, but it doesn't mean our party has not paid attention to it.”
She mentioned that not only the CIAA Bill but all the bills in the committee should be moved forward, and she has been continuously pressuring for this. “We have taken the initiative. Even though the budget session is ongoing, the process of passing bills is happening. Therefore, we are committed to resolving the CIAA Bill as well. We are also exerting pressure in the mechanism meetings to expedite the process,” she said.
The Anti-corruption Bill, which was submitted by the sub-committee in a single day, has already been passed by both houses and was certified by the President on March 16. Both the CIAA and Anti-corruption Bill, registered in the National Assembly on January 20, 2020, were passed by the National Assembly on the same day, February 10, 2023. However, after reaching the HoR, the CIAA Bill has been left pending.
