Sharada Prasad Trital: Corruption Control Blueprint of Nepal

Sharada Prasad Trital is a former secretary of Nepal government. He has held various positions in the Prime Minister’s Office, Election Commission, Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation, among others. He also headed the Lalita Niwas land grab scam probe committee. He is a student of good governance and anti-corruption.

Corruption remains a formidable challenge in our country, a sentiment widely shared among the populace. Despite numerous ideas, plans, policies and laws in place, corruption is prevalent and persistent. Addressing corruption effectively necessitates understanding and action on two critical fronts: prevention and the pursuit of curative solutions. Trital presents a 10-point blueprint to control corruption.

Preventive measure

Preventing corruption primarily rests upon the government’s shoulders, notably the prime minister as the executive head. Evaluating the post-2006/07 scenario, it is evident that, except for Sushil Koirala, all prime ministers were embroiled in corruption. Whether directly or indirectly shielding the accused, they contributed to corruption. Consequently, the government, parliament and political parties emerged as major contributors to the escalation of corruption. While bureaucrats are often perceived as key components in corruption, it’s imperative to recognize that without the support of political power, their involvement in corrupt practices would be considerably constrained. Therefore, the linchpin of corruption lies within the prime minister’s sphere of influence. Given the prime minister’s accountability to parliament, it assumes a significant role in combating corruption. The control that political parties wield over the parliament makes them crucial components in addressing corruption. Regrettably, in our case, neither the prime minister, parliament, nor the political parties have earnestly endeavored to combat corruption. This failure has inadvertently nurtured a culture of corruption in our society.

Curative measures

In addressing the curative aspect, institutions dedicated to combating corruption, such as the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), have been deliberately weakened, restricting their ability to operate independently. It is evident that other corruption-controlling institutions operating under the government also lack the necessary strength. Enhancing the functionality of these institutions requires the implementation of laws, policies and structural improvements. Have we made progress in this area? Unfortunately, no. Upon ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the obligation to devise a national policy against corruption was incumbent upon us. Around 15 years ago, we formulated one: the National Framework to Control Corruption. Astonishingly, except for the individuals involved in drafting the framework, only a handful of individuals are aware of its existence. No further initiatives have been taken, nor have any other anti-corruption policies been introduced. Scant attention, if any, has been paid to implementing even one percent of the framework’s directives.

Legislature measures

Regarding legislation, our anti-corruption laws date back two decades, exemplified by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002. While the methods and mechanisms of corruption evolve annually, the laws designed to prevent corruption remain stagnant. Without updated laws, combating the various manifestations of corruption prevalent in today's society is an arduous task. In 2019, the Nepal Communist Party-led government proposed two amendment bills (CIAA Act and Prevention of Corruption Act) to the National Assembly, purportedly to modernize corruption-related laws. However, these amendments, upon closer examination, were found to pose more danger, potentially fostering a culture of corruption rather than effectively controlling it. Among the amendments proposed, certain provisions stipulate that a corruption case must be filed within five years from the moment when knowledge of someone committing corruption is acquired; otherwise, the case would be dismissed. This limitation could result in numerous cases going unpunished, as instances of corruption can surface at any time. Additionally, one provision in the amendments asserts that decisions made during Cabinet meetings would be beyond the scrutiny of bodies like the CIAA or other corruption-controlling entities. However, a critical issue arises from the absence of a clear definition for ‘policy decision’. Presently, the CIAA interprets Cabinet decisions as policy decisions, claiming that probing these decisions falls beyond its jurisdiction. This provision could potentially shield political influences, allowing them to evade accountability.

International experiences

Internationally, it’s a common practice for government officials to disclose details of their assets upon assuming office. This practice serves as a means to combat corruption, shedding light on their pre-office holdings in comparison to their present assets. However, the proposed amendments seek to abolish this practice, relieving individuals from the obligation to disclose their assets unless specifically requested by relevant institutions. Notably ironic, these amendments were tabled by a prime minister who championed slogans against corruption. Subsequently, three years later, the National Assembly passed the amendment to the lower house. This action effectively implicates the major three political parties in promoting corruption, casting doubt on their commitment to combating it. It’s evident that expecting genuine anti-corruption efforts from these political parties seems increasingly doubtful.

Curbing policy corruption

Policy corruption stands as a significant threat in Nepal. Typically, the Cabinet’s primary tasks involve making three major policy decisions: drafting or amending laws, addressing special cases such as disasters and emergencies and accepting foreign assistance and grants. The remaining 95 percent of decisions made during our cabinet meetings are of a general nature. However, there exists a troubling trend where seemingly simple decisions that could be addressed at a lower administrative level are elevated to the cabinet level to avoid scrutiny and potential punishment. The CIAA, the primary body tasked with probing corruption, has stated that investigating policy decisions falls outside its jurisdiction. This misuse of policy decisions in Nepal has facilitated and exacerbated policy corruption within the system. The control of policy corruption is heavily reliant on governmental involvement. However, it’s a widely acknowledged truth that governments in our country have consistently failed to address corruption. Instead, they often contribute to its proliferation through various means. Given this reality, the prospect of curbing corruption in Nepal seems nearly unattainable under the current circumstances.

Promotional aspect

The government can launch promotional campaigns including educational materials from the school-level to minimize corruption. It can also help in the organizational development of anti-graft bodies so that they can work properly. Else, the government can also form independent institutions to prevent corruption. Also, the government can see if the rules against corruption are implemented or not. It can also prepare different codes of conduct and implement them properly. The parliament should also direct the government to function properly. The parliamentary committees have the right to direct the government and they should exercise their rights to curb corruption. 

Role of civil society

On the preventive front, the active engagement of civil society and media holds substantial potential to exert pressure on the government. Unfortunately, contemporary civil society frequently aligns themselves with specific factions, compromising their independence. Additionally, major media houses often allocate insufficient coverage to corruption cases, limiting their impact. An internationally recognized practice involves governments investing in media houses to engage in investigative journalism, particularly concerning corruption cases. Implementing a similar strategy could prove beneficial for us. Take, for example, instances like the Lalita Niwas land grab case or the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal—neither the government nor mainstream media uncovered these cases. Instead, it was a handful of diligent journalists who dedicated themselves to investigating and exposing these scandals. Furthermore, the absence of legislation protecting whistleblowers is a critical deficiency in our efforts to combat corruption, highlighting the urgent need for such legal provisions.

Role of courts

In the realm of curative measures, the role of the courts is crucial, as anti-graft bodies are tasked with investigating cases, while the responsibility of delivering verdicts falls upon the Special Court and the Supreme Court. However, the overwhelming caseload within Nepali courts poses a significant challenge, leading to delays in reaching conclusions for corruption and other cases. Shockingly, there are decades-old corruption cases still pending in the courts. Moreover, the reluctance of our political parties, parliament, and government to fortify our institutions exacerbates this issue. Political involvement and appointments within these institutions have created an environment conducive to shielding corruption through political influence.

Conflict of interest

Nepal grapples with numerous instances of conflict of interest. It’s not uncommon to find individuals who simultaneously hold positions as bankers and lawmakers. This dual role often leads to the creation of legislation that directly benefits their affiliated organizations. Addressing these conflicts of interest is of paramount importance to ensure ethical governance and prevent the manipulation of laws for personal or organizational gain.

The role of political parties

Given the ineffectiveness of the primary three political parties in combating corruption, it’s imperative to contemplate alternative approaches. The upcoming election holds significant weight, poised to determine the trajectory of Nepal’s corruption culture. The decisions made during this election will shape the direction in which the fight against corruption progresses within the country.