Most recently, top bureaucrats have pushed to remove the cooling-off clause from a bill passed by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives. This clause provides that civil servants become eligible for political appointments only after two years of retirement. The objection from senior officials has triggered widespread debate about the importance of cooling-off periods and the broader implications of the revolving door phenomenon.
When public officials move quickly into private or political roles after their tenure, it raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest, fair governance and the credibility of public institutions. To reduce these risks, many countries have introduced “cooling-off periods” or “revolving door laws” to restrict such movements for a certain time. In Nepal’s case, this issue calls not just for clause-based reforms but for a full legal framework that addresses all aspects of post-retirement appointments.
Global approaches and legal foundations
The concept of a cooling-off period took root in the United States with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, introduced after the Watergate scandal. This law prohibited former public officials from lobbying the departments where they previously worked for a certain period. Later, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 reinforced these efforts by setting clear one- or two-year bans for high-ranking officials entering lobbying roles. The objective was to prevent future private benefits from influencing decisions made during public service.
India also recognized this issue. The All India Services (Conduct) Rules prevent retired civil servants from taking up commercial jobs without prior government approval. In Center for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for ethics in public life, particularly when it comes to awarding contracts or appointing regulators. The Court pointed out the dangers of private companies using insider information gained during government service. However, enforcement and political commitment remain inconsistent.
The United Kingdom has implemented a more structured system. It established the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA), which reviews post-service job proposals by ministers and senior officials. While ACOBA's advice is not legally binding, public and media scrutiny help discourage questionable transitions. In the case of Porter v Magill, 2001, UKHL 67, the House of Lords stressed administrative fairness. The Court ruled that any decision could be struck down if a “fair-minded and informed observer” believed there was a real chance of bias. The case involved a council trying to manipulate housing policies for political benefit, highlighting the importance of impartial governance.
Nepal’s framework and challenges
Nepal has recognized the importance of cooling-off periods in various sectors, though its application remains fragmented and inconsistent. For example, the Nepal Rastra Bank Act prohibits employees of the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) from joining banks and financial institutions (BFIs) for up to three years after leaving their positions. This provision reflects an awareness of potential conflicts of interest in the financial sector and seeks to safeguard public trust. In the judiciary, the Constitution imposes restrictions on judges, allowing them to take on only certain specialized roles as explicitly permitted. Judges also regularly recuse themselves from cases where there is a potential conflict of interest or a reasonable perception of bias.
One of Nepal’s key issues is the absence of an independent institution to review post-retirement appointments. Unlike the UK’s ACOBA, Nepal has no formal mechanism to assess whether a new role for a former official might pose risks of undue influence. Appointments to important bodies, commissions and advisory groups often lack transparency and are based more on political links than merit. The proposed Federal Civil Service Bill 2023 introduces a two-year cooling-off period requiring government approval before any constitutional, political, and diplomatic appointment. Yet, recent opposition from senior officials illustrates the challenge of implementing these rules when personal interests are at stake.
High-ranking civil servants frequently take on politically sensitive roles soon after retiring, undermining the independence and credibility of the institutions they join. The law also lacks a clear definition of “political appointment,” allowing for vague interpretations and selective enforcement. This legal gap makes it easier for influential individuals to bypass accountability.
To improve governance, Nepal should move toward passing a comprehensive revolving door law. Such a law should provide clear definitions of post-retirement roles, specify which types of appointments are restricted, and create an independent ethics body with authority to investigate and enforce the law. This would help ensure that decisions made in public service are not influenced by future personal benefits.
Nepal can also learn from global experiences. Requiring public disclosure of post-retirement roles and decisions made by a reviewing authority would increase transparency. Similarly, issuing a “cooling-off certificate” before an official takes a new job could create a system that is both fair and regulated.
Conclusion
For Nepal to build stronger democratic institutions and maintain public confidence, it must develop a unified, binding legal framework to manage post-retirement roles for public officials. A clearly-defined cooling-off period, backed by an independent review mechanism and precise legal definitions, will help prevent conflicts of interest and promote ethical governance.
The ongoing parliamentary discussions offer a timely opportunity to address this issue. Although there is resistance from vested interests, lawmakers must prioritize reforms that reflect the public interest. Transparency, impartiality and integrity should guide Nepal’s governance. By adapting successful global practices to the national context, Nepal can ensure that public service remains a commitment to the nation—not a shortcut to personal advantage.
