The State Affairs and Good Governance Committee under the House of Representatives is currently discussing the Bill to Amend Corruption Prevention Act, which was passed by the National Assembly on April 9 this year. This discussion has drawn significant public attention, primarily due to the proposed statute of limitations on prosecuting corruption offenses. Under the existing law, there is no time limit for filing complaints or taking action against those who commit corruption. As per the existing laws, those who misappropriate government property can always be prosecuted. Many leaders and employees have been punished because of this provision. Consequently, corrupt individuals live in fear of being punished for the rest of their lives, which acts as a deterrent to engaging in corruption. Ironically, the amendment proposed in this bill would require that corruption offenses be prosecuted within five years from the date of discovery. If not, regardless of the extent of the corruption, the offender would be pardoned. If the proposed amendment to section 45 of the existing law is passed, it is likely that leaders will be more inclined to commit corruption, knowing that they only need to conceal their actions for five years. After that period, they can simply evade punishment. Therefore, if this amendment is approved, the Corruption Prevention Act will undoubtedly become more favorable to those involved in corruption.

If the Act is amended, corruption is likely to gain legal validity, leading to efforts to conceal misdeeds for a few years. Additionally, there could be attempts to delay the discovery of corruption crimes to ensure that the five-year statute of limitations expires as quickly as possible. Thus, imposing a time limit on corruption offenses directly encourages corruption. The message is clear: "Commit corruption, but cover it up for five years" and enjoy the wealth amassed through illegal means. From this perspective, a law with such a limitation on prosecution does not control corruption but rather promotes it. Another important question raised during the discussion is whether this bill should be suspended. A debate has also emerged on whether individuals in public office should be suspended once a case has been registered against them. If a high-ranking employee or leader is accused of embezzlement and must go before judicial bodies during the investigation, what moral justification allows them to continue flying the national flag on a government vehicle? Additionally, what guarantees exist that they will not misuse their position to suppress or destroy evidence after being charged? There is no need for leniency in the law regarding suspension, as the intent is to prevent individuals from threatening or influencing the investigation against them through abuse of power.

However, once the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority files a case in the special court on corruption charges, the misuse of suspension as a legal weapon should be curbed, as there have been cases where the authority appears to have acted out of revenge. Lokman Singh Karki's tenure as the chief commissioner of the CIAA can be considered a case study in this regard. It is not just the ruling parties but also former and current opposition parties that mostly agree on imposing limitations and not suspending corruption offenses. Given that many leaders from these parties are believed to be involved in scandals, it is not surprising that they would agree on such matters. However, the civil society, the intelligentsia, and conscientious Nepali citizens must raise their voices against this. In a society lacking moral education, where respect is often accorded to those who amass wealth by any means, it has become imperative for citizens to use all available means to eradicate corruption, the nation's greatest virus. The need of the hour is organized vigilance against the two provisions—the limitation on prosecuting corruption offenses and the absence of suspension—that should not be allowed to stand.

 
• State_Affairs_and_Good_Governance_Committee
 
• HoR
 
• Bill_to_Amend_Corruption_Prevention_Act
 
• statute_of_limitations