Corruption charges brought against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is one of a kind in the country’s political history. Appointed premier 16 years ago in May 2009 and who resigned after nine months in office, leader Nepal is one of the most senior politicians to face corruption accusations after the anti-graft body, CIAA, charged him and 92 others with violating a Cabinet-approved resolution in 2009 that permitted Patanjali Yogpeeth to buy land property over the permissible limit for ‘constructing a yoga college and herbal industry.’ Within two months, the same cabinet authorized the sale of this property, creating serious concerns regarding the motive and legality of the decisions. Reports revealed that the nation suffered a loss of Rs 185.5 million in this deal.
The filing of Patanjali corruption cases at the Special Court has indeed upended the long-standing practice of protecting political heavyweights who are left untouched. The CIAA's decision to register the corruption case may set a precedent that will reshape Nepal’s political culture and landscape. Previous prime ministers and top leaders also have faced corruption accusations, but legal action has never reached courts. In 2005, Sher Bahadur Deuba was detained by a royal commission, which was later found to be illegal. Since then, succeeding administrations and constitutional authorities have been hesitant to question incumbent or past heads of government. This has resulted in what many accuse of being a system of selective justice, in which bureaucrats and ministers are convicted while the leaders they served go unquestioned.
Former PM Nepal's case is notable since the decision for which he has been accused came straight from the Cabinet. The CIAA has kept itself away from matters pertaining to the Cabinet decisions, claiming that Cabinet choices are beyond its purview. Many believe that the Cabinet made improper decisions due to the CIAA shying away from taking up such matters. From the wide-body aircraft procurement scam to the Lalita Niwas land grab, individuals who presided over such decisions have escaped investigation, let alone official charges. Now that protective cabinet wall appears to have cracked.
Cabinets of Province 2 and 3 expanded
However, there is another angle to this new episode. The circumstances surrounding this case are alleged to be politically motivated. The chief of the CIAA is said to be close to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who is at odds with Nepal and his break-away faction from the CPN-UML. The two leaders were formerly political colleagues inside the CPN-UML, but they parted ways in 2021 when Nepal formed the Unified Socialist Party. Since then, tensions between the two have only grown. For many, especially leaders of Unified-Socialist, the timing of the corruption charge against their chairperson is more than a coincidence. They claim that although many contentious Cabinet decisions remain unresolved the CIAA has chosen to target a leader whose rivalry with PM Oli is known to all. Following the anti-graft body’s action, leader Nepal accused Oli of taking revenge against him.
Leader Nepal expressed that he was unaware of any abuse of authority, implying that someone may have exploited legal gaps without his knowledge. His party, the Unified Socialists, has condemned the CIAA's action as a conspiracy and promised to react politically and legally, as they stated the charges against the party chair are nothing but a political vendetta aimed at discrediting their party and the opposition. Many of them have demanded that PM Oli also be investigated in the Giribandhu Tea Estate case, along with many others. During his earlier premiership, the Oli-led Cabinet’s decision to exchange expensive Giribandhu land for cheaper property in Jhapa had violated the government policy and legal provisions.
Meanwhile, a large section of our society has long called for judicial handling of all high-level decisions, regardless of who made them. A draft bill addressing this issue is stalled in Parliament, opposed by leaders from all parties, including those who are now calling for an impartial probe into the Patanjali land. For many, this case may open a door for other Cabinet decisions that reeked of policy-level corruption to be investigated. If it is established that Cabinet decisions may be challenged in court, political leaders from all parties will be held accountable, and prime ministers' immunity, which formerly protected them, may be gone for good. That will be a watershed event in Nepal's political development.
It is also true that politicizing justice in the name of addressing corruption scandals is a risky proposition, as it may destabilize administrations and politics. Meanwhile, if the prosecution of leader Nepal is nothing but a way of settling old scores, it will erode public trust in our ruling class and governance system and may affect attempts to build legitimate institutions. Leader Nepal’s case is certainly a litmus test: if the case is handled impartially and judiciously, it might suggest that high office no longer offers legal immunity to any leader. If it does not, it may raise concerns that the law is selectively used to settle political scores by targeting a political opponent.
