Sudan scandal has become the talk of the town. A number of factors are behind this. First, this is the first case where a large number of security officials, including three former police chiefs, have been charged of corruption.
Out of the 34 implicated police officers, 24 of them are serving officers; others have retired from their jobs. Second, the vulgarity of the case is reflected by the sheer magnitude of the corruption involved. Out of a total estimated Rs 405 million procurement deal, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) charge sheet speaks of corruption amounting to a whopping Rs 288 million. Much of public outcry is explained by the sheer magnitude of the corruption.
Third, the case has come after eight months of investigation by the parliamentary committee and 14 months of investigation by CIAA. In the 152-page-long CIAA charge sheet, one can find more than half a dozen committees/study teams investigating various aspects of the deal. It will be interesting to find out the total cost of investigation. Fourth, given the nature of the transaction and the number of parties involved, this could be the most complicated case in the annals of corruption history in Nepal. A news report said that CIAA came up with two trunk loads of supporting documents to file the case in the court. Going by the court’s track record of lack of urgency in dealing with corruption cases, it might take ages before the final verdict will be issued.
Fifth, the case is in the highlights not because so many high-ranking officers were implicated; it is drawing attention because of the non-implication of politicians and bureaucrats. The rumor in the power corridors in Kathmandu is rife, not with who is implicated, but with “why so and so is not implicated.” Emails have been leaked out implicating the “in-laws” in the business of “out-laws.” Finally, the freezing of $1 million deposited in Nepal Bangladesh Bank, Bhainsepati Branch on July 27, 2008 by Colorado-based Tarala International in the name of a Chinese national Wu Lixiang under suspicion of money laundering and subsequent dragging of Nepal Rastra Bank into a court battle with Chase Bank has added the much needed masala to the case.
No doubt, all corruption cases are complicated or rather made to be complicated. Sudan case is uniquely complicated in a sense that it includes three intricately woven factors – corruption, inefficiency and politics, including foreign politics. A popular notion of corruption is that “it smells.” The way the whole procurement deal revolved around Shambu Bharati, a local agent of London based Assured Risk Pvt Ltd, is enough to vindicate corruption crime. Out of 34 firms listed for supplying goods, he happens to be the agent of 14. It cannot be a sheer coincidence that the price he offered to reduce falls by a margin of $412.59 (or 0.009 percent) of the deal running over $4.4 million. Mr Bharati is responsible for more than 80 percent of the deal. The information speaks of how corruption smells badly within Nepali Police. This must be the reason why out of 10 police chiefs post-1990, six are facing corruption charges.
Sudan case is uniquely complicated in a sense that it includes three intricately woven factors – corruption, inefficiency and politics, including foreign politics.
There is no doubt about corruption in the Sudan procurement business. There is little disagreement on this issue. However, the point of dissention is why junior-level officers, who were simply following the police chain of command, were also dragged into the net of corruption charges. The corruption part is very much highlighted in CIAA charge sheets and State Affairs Committee (SAC) investigation report. The reports reveal the gross incompetency on the part of Nepal Police in managing logistics, legal contracts and financial deals. From the very start, the supplier seems to have had an upper hand in the deal. Corruption and inefficiency are highly interlinked. All corruptions are inefficient transactions but all inefficient transactions are not corruptions. To apprehend the guilty, inefficiencies (pardonable act) must be dissected from corruption (punishable crime). Otherwise, there will be gross injustice to the parties involved.
Politics, especially the role of UN and our so-called foreign friends, has remained subtle. For example, SAC report squarely lays the blame on Nepal Police for not claiming compensation from the supplier after UN inspection team reported Armed Personnel Carriers (APCs) of sub-standard quality. The report says that Nepal Police still had one month of warranty period to make such claims. However, it is silent over the fact that out of 12 months of warranty period, UN inspection did take place only in the eleventh month. The false assurances, slothful and slow bureaucracy within UN are equally responsible for complicating the case. To dispense full justice to Nepali police officers, UN personnel involved in the case should also come under the scanner.
Other important questions to be addressed include: (1) Why did India take two months to give clearance to the goods-in-transit? (2) What led Germany to prohibit armed APC, procured from Czech Republic, to be transported via Germany? (3) Why did Nepali APC trainee drivers, on the way to Czech Republic, have to return from New Delhi? Is it simply because they did not have London transit visa? (4) Why it is so difficult for Nepalis to get Sudanese visa? Definitely, there must be an intricate play of foreign politics in the arms dealings of a small and poor country like Nepal.
Mention must be made of Nepal’s own internal politics as well. Would the case have come to limelight if Nepali Congress had not lost the CA elections and late G P Koirala continued to hold on to power? The way former home ministers are resorting to media interviews, clarifying their positions and proving their innocence, speak more than what they have to say. It is beyond the comprehension of many as to why a mere bureaucrat holding power inside a leaderless CIAA is daring to take so much risk? Why did Member of Parliament Lila Nayechaiye, a member of the parliamentary sub-committee formed to investigate Sudan scandal, withdraw from visiting Sudan at the eleventh hour?
There are many questions begging answers. There are both good news and bad news from the Sudan scandal. The bad news is that the case could be the last nail in the coffin of CIAA. The good news is that there might be a rethinking or a reawakening of anti-corruption drive, which is in a mess in the country right now.
narayan.manandhar@gmail.com
Related story
Sudan's minister of defense dies of heart attack in south Sudan
