This 10 position slip in the ranking, despite the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA)’s very public campaign to net corrupt officials, raises  serious questions over the effectiveness of Nepal’s more than a dozen anti-graft bodies. Why does corruption continue to thrive in Nepal despite the existence of strong constitutional and legal frameworks and constitutionally-empowered anti-graft bodies? There is, thus, a need for a genuine review to understand how and why these institutions and policies have turned failed.

Small catch

Even as anti-corruption activists in some South Asian countries, including India, are struggling to bring Cabinet members under the ambit of anti-graft bodies, Nepal’s Corruption Prevention Act 2002 empowers national anti-corruption bodies to investigate the wrongdoings of any individual holding public office. Until some years ago, the CIAA was even considered an exemplary institution in the region for controlling corruption, especially after Surya Nath Upadhyay was appointed chief against the backdrop of strong, newly-formulated laws. The CIAA has now resumed its drive against corrupt individuals, primarily focussing on petty corruption concerning education, health, and public welfare schemes after Lokman Singh Karki took charge. But the CIAA, which still lacks three additional commissioners, has largely overlooked high-profile corruption involving influential politicians and bureaucrats. The much-talked-about multi-billion rupee cantonment case and over 1,000 corruption cases concerning disproportionate spending are still pending at the CIAA.

Karki, thus, seems to only have teeth when it comes to small fish. As a result, people’s perception of corruption has attained new heights, placing Nepal as the third most corrupt country in South Asia after Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Bhutan, a country that once used to present Nepal as an ideal example in terms of fighting corruption, was named the cleanest South Asian nation with 65 marks. Even India, which has weaker legal frameworks when compared to Nepal, made significant progress in combating corruption this year.   

Insitutional failure

Multiple reasons account for Nepal’s failure to control corruption. The problem started after anti-graft bodies diverted their priorities towards unnecessary activities, instead of pursuing their mandate. Political parties continue to influence anti-graft bodies and sideline measures to hold their cadres accountable by differing local polls for the last 12 years. Now, the lack of accountability in Nepal’s local bodies has defamed the country aboard too, primarily after the UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact concluded that DFID funds allocated for the multibillion-rupee Local Governance and Community Development Programme had missed its targets at the local level. Along with DFID, 14 other donors had pumped $161 million into the first phase of the programme between 2008-2012 while $151 million is being spent under the programme’s second phase.

Furthermore, anti-graft bodies are not free from corruption controversies themselves. The CIAA’s arrest of Shambhu Chalise, an investigation officer at the Department of Money Laundering Investigation, while receiving a Rs 1 billion bribe from a service seeker, and Police Inspector (now Deputy Superitendent of Police) KP Sharma’s involvement in collecting bribes from people on the CIAA watch list illustrates how corruption is thriving even in anti-graft bodies. The CIAA, which has arrested over a dozen government officials on charges of accepting bribes by conducting sting operations, did not take any action against Sharma, its own official, once the case surfaced in the media. Instead, it sent Sharma back to his previous office—police headquarters—without properly investigating his involvement. The government promoted him to DSP within a couple of weeks after the incident came to light.

Structural problem

Among the 16 anti-graft bodies, most are not functioning effectively while the rest are not accountable. In some cases, they have even attempted to undercut each others’ roles while trying to portray themselves as better. Therefore, strong legal and constitutional frameworks and anti-graft bodies are clearly not delivering desired results in Nepal’s battle against corruption. Furthermore, anti-graft bodies are facing multiple problems in the absence of clearly defined jurisdiction. As a result, key anti-graft bodies often clash with each other. The arrest of Chalise by the CIAA is one example.

Joint secretaries lead crucial anti-graft bodies like the Department of Money Laundering Investigation and the Department of Revenue Investigation, which deal with high-profile corruption cases involving secretaries, ministers, and businesspersons. But a Joint Secretary working under a Secretary will rarely dare to act against his boss. So, on the one hand, these institutions have not succeeded in yielding desired outcomes and on the other, constitutionally-empowered bodies like the CIAA do not have the mandate to fully oversee money laundering and illicit monetary affairs. The government is also delaying in bringing the private sector, the judiciary, the national army, and I/NGO-related corruption under the CIAA’s ambit, leaving an estimated 60 percent of total corruption beyond the anti-graft body’s scanner.  

The government also seems completely indifferent to demarking jurisdictions of anti-graft bodies and enabling and coordinating them under the prime ministers’ direct supervision. Institutions established under the PM’s direct supervision, ie, the National Vigilance Centre, the Public Procurement and Monitoring Office, Hello Sarkar, and Good Governance Cell are gradually turning dysfunctional in the absence of a clear mandate and vision. As for the CIAA, it carries out punitive functions against corruption, ranging from procurement to monitoring and investigating disproportionate properties.

Additionally, the government has decided to expand regional networks in five regions, even as the secretary-headed Office of Regional Administrator is functionless and the CIAA has already established its own regional offices, arguing that both the District Administration Office and Regional Administration mechanism had failed to control corruption.

One for all

The saga of expanding anti-graft bodies does not end here. Recently, court justices from across the country demanded a separate Judicial Probe Body to investigate possible irregularities. This demand for the formation of a separate body for the judiciary not only displays that the judiciary is not free from irregularities, but also indicates the judiciary is not ready to face an investigation by a constitutional anti-graft body in line with the United Nations Convention against Corruption. So what will happen if the Police, the Army and civil servants too reject the CIAA’s investigation and demand their own investigation body?  

In this context, holding an apex anti-graft body accountable will definitely be a tall order. But controlling corruption seems impossible in Nepal, unless a single entity is given the mandate to act freely and it begins to take action against people at the top. No reforms in the world are ever made without risks. That is why, it is high time anti-graft bodies took a risk to clean the country’s tainted image.

Sharma is with the political desk at the Post