KATHMANDU, April 14: The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is a constitutional body mandated to investigate corruption. If the CIAA is given clear legal authority to probe policy-level corruption arising from Cabinet decisions, no political party or leader would dare make decisions or frame policies driven by vested interests.
During the Gen Z movement, one of the strongest talking points was the narrative that leaders' corruption has caused the country's failure to develop. After the September 8 movement, the interim government had said it would open corruption files. However, as its main priority was conducting elections, it could not focus on that agenda. Still, the CIAA continued its regular work.
On March 27, the government led by Balendra Shah decided to form a powerful asset investigation committee within 15 days to end corruption, hidden wealth, and impunity. The move created a wave of public optimism. Soon after taking office, Prime Minister Shah had approved a 100-point governance reform agenda, which included the formation of such a committee. However, the 15-day deadline has already expired.
According to point number 43 of the government’s publicly announced agenda, the committee was to include experts in law, finance, revenue, and investigation, along with representatives of concerned agencies. In the first phase, it was tasked with collecting, verifying, and investigating asset details of major political office bearers and high-ranked government officials, who have held public office from 2005/06 to the present (2024/25). In the second phase, it was to examine those who held public office between 1991 and 2004/05.
Meanwhile, Home Minister Sudan Gurung met CIAA Chief Commissioner Prem Kumar Rai and urged him to act in line with the government’s spirit. However, the minister has remained silent about the visit. His secretariat did not respond when asked about the meeting and its discussions. Even SMS queries went unanswered.
Asset management of Smart Telecom faces delays; Ncell's ‘influe...
It is said that Gurung visited the CIAA after former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was released on bail. According to a CIAA source, he did not discuss corruption issues related to Oli and instead urged the commission to act in line with the demands of the Gen Z movement and the government’s direction.
However, such visits by ministers to the head of a constitutional anti-graft body are rare. “Parliamentary committees can call the CIAA chief and expect alignment with government priorities. But it is not appropriate for a minister to personally visit and instruct the commission on how to act. Constitutional bodies must remain independent,” said a former CIAA chief.
At the same time, discussions are ongoing over alleged policy-level corruption in the land swap of the Giribandhu Tea Estate in Jhapa. It is believed that Minister Gurung may have visited the CIAA in this context, possibly to push for progress in the investigation. However, he has not made any public statement on the issue and reportedly returned after general discussions.
The Cabinet made the land swap decision under a law passed by Parliament, which limits the CIAA's ability to investigate it immediately. At a time when concerns over good governance are rising due to legal provisions that restrict the CIAA from probing Cabinet policy decisions, the Giribandhu case has remained stalled. The government has not yet enacted a law that grants the CIAA authority to investigate Cabinet decisions. The current government, however, is interested in probing policy-level corruption in the Giribandhu land swap, and complaints related to it are already with the CIAA.
The land swap decision during the Oli-led government faced strong criticism, with allegations that the law was introduced with intent. Parliament at the time—comprising the UML, Nepali Congress, and the then Maoist Centre—passed the law, and the Cabinet made the decision accordingly. A case was filed in the Supreme Court, which initially halted the land swap. Later, during proceedings, after the cabinet decided to relocate the tea estate land—343 bigha 19 kattha 12 dhur in Birtamod Municipality-6—the case was eventually dismissed.
In a case involving allegations of billions in irregularities and even links to then Prime Minister Oli, no investigation has progressed so far due to the protection offered by Cabinet decisions. At the time, Oli himself had said, “Let’s investigate those involved in the Giribandhu land transactions; whoever deserves punishment should be punished.” However, legally, the CIAA does not currently have jurisdiction over such matters.
During the previous government, a subcommittee under the House of Representatives’ State Affairs and Good Governance Committee had interpreted that not all Cabinet decisions are necessarily policy decisions and passed the “CIAA (Third Amendment) Bill.” Had that bill been passed without change, it would have opened the door for the CIAA to investigate decisions made by federal and provincial governments. However, after Parliament was dissolved, the responsibility now lies with the current government.
Only after a law is enacted by Parliament can the CIAA proceed further in such cases. Even earlier, after concerns were raised, the CIAA had completed a preliminary investigation. But due to a lack of legal backing, it could not move forward, and pressure has continued on Parliament to pass the law. The CIAA itself had also urged parliamentary committees to introduce such legislation. Still, it has not been granted authority to investigate Cabinet decisions.
Section 4(b) of the CIAA Act, 1991, states that the commission shall not investigate or take action on any policy decision made collectively by the Cabinet or its committees. This clearly limits its jurisdiction.
In 2019, during the government led by KP Sharma Oli after the CPN-UML–CPN (Maoist Centre) merger, an amendment was introduced allowing land obtained under ceiling exemptions to be swapped or sold for specific purposes. The “Land (Eighth Amendment) Act, 2020” was passed by Parliament. Under the added Section 12(c), such land was allowed to be sold or exchanged.
Through this legal amendment, a pathway was created for Giribandhu Tea Estate to utilize valuable land. Other similarly situated companies were also given the same possibility. Sub-section 2 of Section 12(c) states that the government may approve a land exchange. It further states that if an industry, institution, or company is dissolved or goes into liquidation, it shall not be considered an obstacle to selling or distributing such land with government approval for settling liabilities.
It also allows agricultural farms, industries, companies, or institutions to relocate or exchange land under specified conditions. If an application showing reasonable and sufficient cause for relocation or exchange within the ceiling limit is found appropriate, the government may approve such exchange or relocation.
Thus, once the law itself allowed land exchange based on government approval under “reasonable grounds,” the Cabinet decision to proceed with the swap appears to have been made under that legal framework.
