Nepal seeks to clarify 'policy decisions' to curb corruption

Nepal's government is grappling with a persistent loophole that allows corruption to be concealed as legitimate "policy decisions." Five months into its term, the Rastriya Swatantra Party-led administration has yet to advance a crucial amendment to Nepal's anti-graft laws, which would bring such actions under the purview of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).

“

We must clarify this. Otherwise, how can the Cabinet function? Which prime minister can work effectively? If we are afraid of making policy decisions, how will the country move forward?

Rabi Lamichhane, chair of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, emphasized the urgency of clarifying what constitutes a "policy decision." "We must clarify this," he told a parliamentary committee. "Otherwise, how can the Cabinet function? Which prime minister can work effectively? If we are afraid of making policy decisions, how will the country move forward?"

The ambiguity surrounding "policy decisions" creates a difficult balance. While a broad definition could deter ministers from making necessary policy choices, a lack of clarity allows routine administrative matters to be presented to the Cabinet, potentially shielding them from anti-corruption investigations. Prem Kumar Rai, chief commissioner of the CIAA, confirmed the agency's current lack of legal authority to investigate corruption stemming from Cabinet-level policy decisions, stating, "Until we amend the provisions regarding policy decisions in Section 4 of the CIAA Act, Cabinet decisions will remain beyond our jurisdiction."

“

What is a policy decision? What matters fall under this category, and should they be subject to investigation? We must establish this in the law.

Critics argue that officials exploit this provision by elevating ordinary decisions, including those related to public procurement and contracts, to the Cabinet level even when they possess the authority to make them independently. This practice can allow decisions with potential conflicts of interest or corruption to be disguised as "policy decisions." A previous attempt to close this loophole in the earlier parliament stalled, with a bill to amend the CIAA Act ultimately becoming inactive.

“

Until we amend the provisions regarding policy decisions in Section 4 of the CIAA Act, Cabinet decisions will remain beyond our jurisdiction. Because the law is unclear, we cannot file cases against Cabinet decisions.