Nepal's government forms commissions but ignores their findings

Nepal's Prime Minister Balendra Shah's government, which vowed to break from past practices and increase transparency, is repeating a familiar political pattern: forming high-level commissions to quell public outrage but then neglecting their findings. Since taking office, the administration has established at least 10 investigative committees. However, the urgency shown in their creation dissipates once they submit their reports.

“

Forming high-level probe commissions and task forces in response to public outrage is a long-standing political practice in Nepal.

Reports addressing critical issues like constitutional reform, national security, and human rights violations have either not been made public, were not formally received, or remain unimplemented. This pattern, observed by Kantipur, has led to questions about the purpose and effectiveness of these commissions, which are established at significant public expense.

“

The urgency shown in forming them appears to disappear once they complete their work and submit their reports.

A prime example is the debate paper on constitutional amendment. A task force, coordinated by Prime Minister Shah's political adviser, submitted a report on July 16 proposing sweeping changes to 242 articles of the constitution. The report, which recommends forming a high-level commission for amendments, remains with the prime minister's office. The government has neither released it for public discussion nor initiated parliamentary debate, reportedly hesitating due to opposition parties' reluctance to endorse it.

“

Despite the scale of the proposed changes, the report remains with the prime minister’s office.

Constitutional experts argue that political disagreements do not excuse the government from its duty to publish the report. They contend that after expending state resources and time gathering suggestions, the government should release the paper to foster national discussion. By withholding the report, the prime minister's office has effectively stalled debate on potentially transformative changes to Nepal's constitutional framework. Legal experts and former officials view this handling of commissions not merely as an administrative oversight but as a reflection of a long-standing political strategy to placate public anger without committing to action.

“

After spending state resources and months collecting suggestions, they argue that the government should release the debate paper and allow a national discussion on the proposed changes.