Lokman Singh Karki’s Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has been active in recent days. A number of sting operations have netted bureaucrats, burnishing Karki’s image as an anti-corruption crusader. But not all of his actions have gone down as well as his arrest of corrupt public officials. On Sunday, lawmakers at the Parliament’s Finance Committee raised serious questions over the CIAA’s orders asking that the licences of a number of hydropower projects be cancelled, citing a failure to complete works within the given deadline. The most recent cancellation was for the 37.6MW Kabeli-A Hydropower Project, the last in a string of over one dozen licence cancellations. The lawmakers, including former Finance Minister Surendra Pandey, alleged that the CIAA was overstepping its jurisdiction.

The lawmakers have a point. Although the CIAA is a constitutional body, whose powers and independent standing are mandated by the Interim Constitution and the CIAA Act 1991, it only has jurisdiction over public officials and offices. Article 4 of the CIAA Act states, “The Commission, in accordance with this Act or other current laws, may conduct investigations, file cases or take any action against any person holding a public post found guilty of abusing powers.” Article 120 of the Constitution states the same. The CIAA, meanwhile, argues that the orders do come under its jurisdiction and that it only directed the Ministry of Energy to take action. The case of the Kabeli also falls under a grey area, since the project was initiated under a public-private partnership (PPA) model and the government’s Hydroelectricity Investment and Development Company Limited has a stake in the project.

But given the CIAA’s overzealous actions, there is room for suspicion. Dissatisfaction has been simmering over its arrests of low-level bureaucrats while bigger fish go free; over 600 civil servants, and not a single high-powered politician, were dragged to court last fiscal year. Prominent cases, like the PLA cantonment corruption case and allegations of graft against 400 top politicians, have long been pending at the CIAA. And while such cases go untouched, the CIAA has been acting to increase its reach into the private sector. Karki has allegedly been making attempts to bring the Department of Money Laundering under the CIAA ambit while lobbying to block the expansion of the National Vigilance Centre, a government anti-graft body that reports to the prime minister.

The CIAA—and the larger state apparatus—should most definitely look into the check-and-balance of power that is integral to a democracy, especially so, given the prolonged transition. In the absence of strong oversight from the government and the eroding credibility of the political class, constitutional bodies like the CIAA may feel emboldened in overstepping their bounds. It must be borne in mind that the CIAA was formed to act as a watchdog on public offices, not to intrude on the executive’s turf. To counteract this, the Sushil Koirala government must play a more assertive role in governance, a sphere where it still has much to prove. But in the long term, the CIAA should most certainly introspect so that an overreading of its mandate does not lead to government gridlock.