Lawmakers from across the political spectrum are currently holding clause-by-clause discussions on two separate bills introduced to amend the Corruption Prevention Act and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act. At the heart of the debate, taking place at the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee under the House of Representatives (HoR), is whether to retain a provision allowing anonymous complaints in corruption cases under the CIAA. While some lawmakers favor banning anonymous complaints, others oppose the proposal. The issue has entered public discourse after the State Minister for Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation, Purna Bahadur Tamang, proposed a ban on anonymous complaints during a parliamentary committee meeting held on Friday. Minister Tamang, who is also a lawmaker from the ruling Nepali Congress (NC), suggested making it mandatory to attach a certified copy of the complainant's citizenship certificate to discourage frivolous complaints. He argued that anonymous complaints cause undue trouble for public officials, employees, and businesses. He further contended that requiring identity cards would ensure genuine grievances are reported while protecting people from harassment. While his arguments may have some merit, such a provision for reporting corruption cases to the anti-graft body would effectively undermine Nepal's efforts in curbing corruption.
Former Law Minister Paudel backs anonymous complaints as parlia...
Our policymakers must carefully consider the consequences, understanding that banning anonymous complaints in corruption cases could paralyze the work of anti-graft bodies. Experts have rightly emphasized that anonymous complaints play a critical role in exposing corruption. If prohibited, investigations into corruption could grind to a halt. Most countries around the world have acknowledged the importance of anonymous complaints in combating corruption and have formulated appropriate laws. This provision encourages whistleblowing, targets organized corruption, and protects employees when necessary. Since most citizens lack the courage to file complaints openly due to fear of retaliation, banning anonymous complaints would effectively silence them. It is crucial to understand that corruption often involves powerful individuals and groups. Bribery typically involves both the giver and the taker, who are often influential. Revealing one’s identity in such cases can often be dangerous. Government employees or insiders who are privy to financial irregularities are unlikely to file complaints openly as doing so risks their careers and safety. This highlights the necessity of retaining the provision for anonymous complaints to ensure corruption investigations remain effective.
Nepal was ranked 108th out of 180 countries in the 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, published annually by the Transparency International. Although Nepal made a slight improvement, climbing two positions in the global ranking compared to previous year, the government still has a long way to go in effectively curbing rampant corruption. We, as a newspaper, urge lawmakers to consider the negative consequences such provisions may have on Nepal’s fight against corruption. Corruption negatively impacts various sectors, including Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and undermines efforts to ensure good governance. As Nepal seeks to attract more FDI and improve the livelihoods of its people, any legislation introduced by the parliament should facilitate, not hinder, these efforts. With these concerns in mind, parliamentarians must act wisely to preserve the provision allowing anonymous complaints under the CIAA to ensure accountability and maintain the momentum in the fight against corruption.
