Asset Probe That Spares the Powerful

The Balendra Shah government set up the Asset Investigation Commission as one of its key promises to deliver good governance by combating corruption. The move to form the commission was politically justifiable, as the public has long been experiencing growing frustration over corruption. Successive governments had promised to ensure accountability by curbing corruption and abuse of power, but most failed to deliver. The commission has been authorized to investigate the sources of assets and wealth accumulated by political leaders and top public officials during 2006–2025, a period marked by frequent political upheavals, increased state expenditure, and persistent allegations of misuse of power and corruption. Yet the commission’s mandate contains a significant contradiction. It prohibits direct scrutiny of sitting judges, constitutional office holders, Nepali Army personnel, and first-time lawmakers and ministers. Such exclusions immediately raise concerns about the fairness and purpose of the asset probe. Corruption does not recognize institutional boundaries. Unexplained wealth can emerge in any public institution where power, influence, and access to state resources exist. If powerful individuals are exempted from scrutiny, it will significantly diminish the credibility of the entire exercise.

However, these exemptions suggest that the government has drawn lines between those it wishes to investigate and those it seeks to protect. Such perceptions are not without basis. Anti-corruption campaigns require impartiality to remain legitimate. If the public begins to see the probe as selective, it will lose trust, even if conducted with the best of intentions. For instance, excluding the Nepali Army from the probe is difficult to justify. The army is one of the country’s most powerful institutions and has, on several occasions, faced allegations of procurement irregularities and misuse of authority. Similarly, the rationale for exempting first-time MPs and ministers is questionable. Being a first-time officeholder does not automatically imply financial integrity. Some may have acquired wealth through legitimate means, while others may possess assets inconsistent with their declared income. Illegal wealth is often concealed through family members, associates, or proxies. Excluding individuals solely on the basis of their first term creates an unnecessary blind spot in the investigation. The judiciary and constitutional bodies present a similar challenge. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, but independence should not come at the cost of accountability. Public trust in the judiciary depends on fairness, transparency, and integrity. The same principle applies to constitutional office holders who wield significant influence over state affairs.

If the government is serious about eradicating corruption, it cannot allow perceptions of selective protection. Accountability must apply to all centers of power. The fight against corruption will fail if some institutions remain beyond meaningful scrutiny. Before examining others, the government must ensure that those currently in power—including ministers, officials, security personnel, judges, and top leadership—are also subject to credible oversight. An effective anti-corruption drive must be impartial, consistent, and willing to investigate everyone, regardless of position or political affiliation. Only then will the public believe that the promise of good governance is more than a slogan.