On governance front, two issues are at the center of discourse for the past couple of weeks. The first is big fishes versus small fries issue and the second is about Social Practices (Reform) Act 1976 and its unprecedented implementation by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Chief Commissioner Lokman Singh Karki.
Let's discuss CIAA's possible action against big fishes first. This author, with about 15 years of experience on anti-corruption reporting, believes that an investigation has to be initiated and cases should filed against big fishes if CIAA substantiates the charge sheets. However, one should not forget that substantiating cases where big fishes are allegedly involved is not as easy as expected, discussed and analyzed at public forums, tea shops, and in media and other platforms.
Huge properties
It is true that thousands of such big fishes have been accumulating disproportionate properties to their incomes for long. But do they keep due records of everything so that the CIAA indicts them whenever it wants? It is CIAA's duty to excavate the records. Again it is not that easy to bring such big fishes under the CIAA net since political leaders, high ranking bureaucrats, notorious businessmen and contractors whom people consider as big fishes are believed to have not deposited black money in their own bank accounts, or spent it on building houses and buying lands in their names. Even if they keep the records of disproportionate properties, they do so so shrewdly that neither the CIAA nor any other international powerful anti-graft body can indict them on charges of amassing properties without legal source of income.
When Suryanath Upadhyaya, the former chief commissioner of the CIAA, filed graft cases against some leaders/civil servants, rest of the suspected leaders, civil servants, power brokers, contractors, and businessmen started hiding their properties. Moreover, they haven't stopped bribing people and looting state treasuries. They have been accumulating properties adopting such corruption strategies that CIAA and other agencies can hardly dig out their wrong activities. It is believed that either they have amassed properties in someone else's names or have buried their properties underground. They might have sent black money abroad. Some might have hidden cash money at their houses. Now the question arises: Can CIAA raid everyone's house on the suspicion of hiding cash money? First, the CIAA cannot raid everyone's house without solid evidence. Second, if it does so, it will be blamed of terrorizing the society and people in the name of curbing corruption.
Public role
The role of eyewitness/public is important to help the CIAA substantiate charge sheets against big fishes. Eyewitnesses, local people, relatives, domestic helps can tip off the CIAA about their neighbors, leaders, businessmen and landlords of hiding ill-gotten money. And, if the CIAA gets genuine complaints and tip offs, it has to take steps to raid, arrest and start investigation against the suspects.
To remain idle despite having adequate tip offs against big fishes and blaming the CIAA for not booking them is sheer hypocrisy. CIAA cannot file cases at the court on the basis of speculation and baseless charge sheets. It has to substantiate accusations before filing the cases. If someone files complaints against somebody accusing him/her of becoming billionaire overnight and the CIAA initiates investigation against them but fails to substantiate the accusations, it simply cannot file the case. Law doesn't recognize people's sentiment, aspiration and expectation. It is said that sometimes law is blind to people's sentiments and expectations. Sometimes even the judges are compelled to release murderers if required evidence is missing in the charge sheet. If you try to take risk by filing cases without substantiating the facts, the court may raise question about your intention and scrap the case.
Precedents set
We rarely look into facts, figures and realities before blaming, lambasting and attacking others. The recent example is related to the wedding function of CIAA Chief Lokman Singh Karki's daughter. Without looking into the facts, a section of the society attacks Karki whatever he does and says. Shortcomings are everywhere in every profession/institution and CIAA is no exception. But most of us rarely talk about CIAA chief's good decisions/bold initiatives and the positive impacts brought about in the society by his moves but attack him without considering his and his family's private life and image.
After assuming office, the CIAA chief had issued a directive asking all stakeholders to comply with Social Practice (Reform) Act 1976. Almost all walks of life in the society strongly criticized the CIAA's move, saying that the law doesn't reflect the spirit of modern times. Following that move, the entire society had been keeping eyes on CIAA chief himself. Many anticipated Karki's social conducts to point out errors. They were closely monitoring his family's activities.
But the CIAA chief silenced his critics by conducting a simple wedding ceremony of his daughter, thereby setting an unparalleled example. Despite huge biased speculations, his daughter's wedding function fully complied with Social Practices (Reform) Act. Abiding by Clauses 7 and 8 of the Act, he didn't invite more than 51 guests on the wedding day; neither did he allow the bridegroom to bring more than 51 people as jantis. Isn't it an example of a person holding such an important position walking the talk? Are there any other examples where VIPs like him did so in the past in our society? Isn't it the best precedent to learn lessons from while conducting a social event? He has proved himself as a law abiding citizen and set a good precedent in the history of Nepal as there are rarely any examples of high ranking officials like him complying with that law.
This author was surprised to see criticisms against Karki of using his official quarters to conduct the wedding function. Instead of lauding his excellent practice, the faultfinders started their fox-cries by lambasting Karki for the use of quarters. It should be understood that the government has set up a separate quarter for CIAA chief at the back of CIAA's main building. Quarters are provided to VVIPs for security reasons. CIAA chief is also residing at his official quarter along with his entire family for the past one and half years for security reasons. The CIAA Chief, members and staffs earn enemies every hour and everyday due to their work nature. That's why they are considered to be the authorities with high risk and severe security threats.
In this context, criticisms seem baseless because CIAA chief concluded his daughter's wedding from his quarter premises, not from CIAA's office premises. Second, only a tent was set up and no additional decoration was made within the quarter premises. Third, the wedding function was so simple that this author has rarely witnessed such a social function organized by VVIPs in the past.
Did Karki make a mistake by using his quarter land? If so, why is he allowed to live in that place with his family in the first place? He himself had issued directive not to organize big parties in party palaces thus conducting his daughter's wedding from party palace was not possible for him. Some argued that he could have conducted the wedding from his own house. Was it possible for him to take all his belongings to his original house for a few days and again bring them back to CIAA quarters?
Did we look into the impact of the unfair criticism made against Karki on the day the marriage was taking place? Wasn't the criticism aimed at tarnishing Karki and his entire family's image without their mistake? Let's not forget that right to marriage is enshrined as fundamental right in all national and international laws and human rights treaties including UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR and Nepal's Interim Constitution. Additionally, the marriage function of Karki's daughter is abundantly compatible to Social Reform Act and sets an example for others. Corruption can be minimized if the VIPs and the entire society comply with the Social Practice Reform Act and learn lesson from CIAA Chief.
Twitter: @bimal_gautam
Related story
Probe commission files case against 55 loan sharks
