Legalizing corruption
Issue 152 • On a statute of limitations for corruption cases
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening from Kathmandu.
Before we begin, I’d like to give a quick shoutout to my two newest paid subscribers — Eileen Moncoeur from the Sabal Foundation and Niharika Tuladhar from Columbia University. Thank you for your support, and I hope you continue to enjoy this newsletter. For anyone else who’d like to contribute, scroll down below for details.
In this newsletter:
Traffic accident sparks riot
Nepali officials leave, and foreign officials arrive
Transitional justice amendment bill passed
After COVID, monkeypox
The deep dive: Legalizing corruption
Traffic accident sparks riot
On Thursday afternoon, traffic police were conducting a routine speed check at Gatthaghar in Bhaktapur when a truck struck a scooter. The scooter driver died on the spot, while the truck driver reportedly fled the scene. The scene was apparently so horrific that incensed locals attempted to assault traffic police personnel, accusing them of killing the scooter driver with their negligence. Things grew more tense as the crowd grew to over a thousand people. The mob attacked the parked truck and vandalized a traffic police podium. Riot police arrived, leading to a standoff with the locals, who continued to pelt stones. The mob only dispersed after the police lobbed tear gas and baton charged the protestors. The truck driver was eventually arrested.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, misinformation was rife. While some news portals claimed that the scooter driver was a woman, others said it was a 40-45-year-old man whose registration papers were discovered at the scene. Horrific photos, allegedly of the accident, spread on social media. A man even appeared at the scene, claiming that his sister, Sushma Nepali, was the victim. But then Sushma herself appeared at the scene, saying she was very much alive. Eyewitnesses claimed that the traffic police did not attend to the accident and that the truck driver deliberately reversed over the injured scooter driver to kill them. The media, too, duly repeated this misinformation in their bid to be the first to say something new.
On Friday, CCTV footage of the accident was finally made available to the public, and things became much clearer. Here is the video, and although there’s no visible gore or injury, know that it shows a person being struck by a truck. In the video, we can see the traffic police at their checkpoint in one street lane. The scooter in question merges into the next lane but ends up too close to a truck and in the driver’s blind spot. The scooter slows down, and the truck ends up crushing it. The traffic police respond immediately.
Almost everything speculated on before the incident was wrong. The scooter driver was a 40-45-year-old man, not a woman, as speculated. The truck did not reverse over the body to murder the injured man, and the traffic police were not negligent. This incident shows how quickly misinformation spreads and how quickly Nepalis believe what they see/read on the internet. Everyone wants to be the first to share new information, and in that rush to be first, they end up sharing inaccurate misinformation that only does more harm than good.
The other point of concern is how a traffic accident snowballed into a riot. It seems young men were already upset at the traffic police, who conduct random checks and quickly issue fines. These young men are angry and frustrated. Many are no doubt attempting to leave the country for work abroad. This incident turned into an outlet for their anger towards the establishment and towards a country that provides nothing but takes everything. The accident was only the casus belli; those young men were primed to explode. This is not the only time such violence has broken out spontaneously. There is a lot of anger and disillusionment among Nepalis. Many are just looking for an outlet. Things have the potential to go very wrong, very fast. Take heed.
Nepali officials leave, and foreign officials arrive
Last week, newly appointed Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited Nepal for two days on a ‘familiarization’ visit. Misri, who was appointed foreign secretary earlier in July, met with government officials, including President Ram Chandra Poudel, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, his Nepali counterpart Sewa Lamsal, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, and the leadership of various political parties. This visit was meant for Misri to meet with Nepali officials and politicians and get to know them. The Nepali side also presented its list of demands to the Indian government. Misri departed with an understanding of what Nepalis want from India, which is what India can leverage.
On Friday, Richard Verma, United States deputy secretary of state for management and resources, will visit Nepal on his way to India. Verma will do the rounds, meeting with the same people that Misri met, but American officials, unlike the Indians or the Chinese, also tend to meet with rights activists and civil society, albeit in a largely symbolic manner. It’s part of the American approach of pairing diplomacy with activism and support for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Often, this approach can feel disingenuous, especially given the US’ continued support for Israel’s casual disregard for human rights and the rule of law in Gaza. Verma is the same official who was hauled over the coals by Republicans in Congress over a US grant allegedly to “spread atheism” in Nepal. You can read more on that in this newsletter:
After bidding goodbye to Verma, it will be the turn of Madam Foreign Minister to visit Delhi, her first international trip since becoming foreign minister. Rana Deuba has good relations with the Indian establishment, especially high-ranking functionaries in the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. She is scheduled to meet her counterpart, S Jaishankar, and has also requested to meet President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The latter is unlikely to find time for Foreign Minister Rana Deuba, but perhaps her BJP connections will find a way to make it happen.
Transitional justice amendment bill passed
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives endorsed the bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, colloquially known as the transitional justice act. This marks a significant milestone and will hopefully signal a definitive end to the peace process, which has now stretched longer than the actual Maoist conflict. The amendments now list rape and sexual violence; enforced disappearance; arbitrary murder; inhumane torture as “serious violations of human rights.” Such cases are not eligible for amnesty, a critical provision demanded by conflict victims and the Supreme Court. The bill also provides for reconciliation and amnesty, but not in the cases mentioned above of serious human rights violations.
While human rights organizations still have reservations over some of the bill’s provisions, particularly the definition of serious human rights abuses and provisions for amnesty and reduction of sentences in cases of reconciliation, the amendment can be a stepping stone towards resolving long-standing transitional justice issues. Victims cannot wait forever, hoping that a perfect Act will come along and satisfy all rights organizations lobbying on their behalf. A number of these organizations also want prosecution at all costs, especially for Maoist combatants and leaders, regardless of what the victims want. Nepal has chosen the truth and reconciliation route, meaning that all conflict-era cases cannot be dealt with through a criminal prosecution lens.
At least now, the two transitional justice commissions — Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission to Investigate Enforced Disappearances — can finally get chiefs and members and begin work. Care, of course, must be taken to ensure that the process of appointing these commission members is fair, transparent, and acceptable to conflict victims. And these commissions, once operational, must ensure that they place victims at the center of their work, not the politicians who appointed them or the organizations who lobbied on their behalf.
To truly heal from the wounds of the conflict, the needs of the victims — not the needs of politicians, activists, civil society, or the many human rights organizations — must come first.
After Covid, monkeypox
Lest we forget, COVID-19 is still around, albeit in a less virulent form. According to The Kathmandu Post, out of 5,373 tests conducted since January, 341 were positive for COVID-19. Many more cases are believed to have gone undiagnosed since most Nepalis are vaccinated, and COVID symptoms are thus less extreme, manifesting in cold-like symptoms of a sore throat, runny nose, and mild fever. Alongside COVID, Nepal is also witnessing numerous other viral infections, including swine flu, influenza, Hong Kong flu, and dengue.
The bigger concern, however, is monkeypox (mpox), which the World Health Organization, on Wednesday, designated a ‘public health emergency of global concern.’ Lest we forget, COVID, too, started with the same designation. Mpox, however, is less virulent than COVID and has been primarily limited to Africa. That said, if COVID has taught us anything, diseases don’t stay restricted to one geographical area in this era of global connectivity. So it is always wise to take precautions, which the Nepali authorities are reportedly doing. The Epidemiology and Disease Control Division has reportedly asked the authorities to set up screening for everyone coming in from Africa. This includes Nepali migrants to Africa, tourists with a recent history of travel to Africa, and Nepali peacekeepers who’ve come back from Africa. So far, no cases have been detected in Nepal or India, but India, too, is on high alert. No one wants a repeat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
That’s all for this week’s round-up. The deep dive continues after the break below.
I need your support. KALAM Weekly is a passion project and relies on your goodwill to continue arriving in your inboxes every week. Consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking the link below:
Those in Nepal who want to contribute can do so through eSewa using the QR code below. Please do remember to mention your name so I can provide you with your paid subscription.
The deep dive: Legalizing corruption
Image generated by Microsoft Image Creator
Last week, on Tuesday, August 6, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli told the parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance committee that he had never indulged in corruption and never would. “I do not tolerate corruption,” he said.
Oli has said this before; he says it each time he becomes prime minister. And it’s not just Oli; every prime minister makes a show of pledging to root out corruption — this time around. Of course, nothing ever comes of this promise. Each administration ends up as corrupt as the one before it. This is not a party problem either. All the major political parties — Sher Bahadur Deuba’s Congress, Oli’s UML, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s Maoists — have allegations of corruption against party members. For instance, Bal Krishna Khand of the Congress is currently in jail for his involvement in the fake Bhutanese refugee scam, which has also implicated current Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, who is also Sher Bahadur Deuba’s wife; KP Sharma Oli himself has been accused of policy corruption in the Giribandhu Tea Estate land swap; while Krishna Bahadur Mahara, a senior Maoist politician and Dahal’s confidante, has been implicated in gold smuggling through Tribhuvan International Airport.
Rhetoric is one thing; action is another.
The Parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance Committee summoned Prime Minister Oli over an amendment bill currently under discussion at the committee. The bill will amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, instituting a new five-year statute of limitations for filing corruption cases. If the amendment passes, corruption cases cannot be legally filed after five years of discovery.
The bill was first registered at the Upper House of the federal parliament in January 2020, when KP Sharma Oli was prime minister. The National Assembly sat on the bill for three years and only passed it in April 2023. The bill then moved to the Lower House, currently under discussion at the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee. Now that Oli is prime minister again, he intends to move the bill forward.
For those unfamiliar with the process of turning bills into laws, a bill must first be registered either at the Upper House, also called the National Assembly, or the Lower House, also called the House of Representatives. Each House has the prerogative to either pass the bill in its current form or send it back to the ministry that registered it. If passed, the bill then goes to the other House, where it must be passed again. Then, the bill goes to the President, who can authenticate it, turning it into a law. However, even the President can send the bill back to the House that last endorsed it, asking for changes. The House can either make those changes or send the bill back to the President as it is. Then, the President is legally required to endorse the bill since the president’s post is largely ceremonial. However, former President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, in September 2022, infamously refused to endorse an amendment to the Citizenship Act. You can read more about that fiasco here:
But back to the matter at hand.
Since the bill to amend the Corruption Prevention Act was filed, numerous independent watchdog organizations and politicians have cried foul. Those who introduced the bill argue that a statute of limitations is necessary to prevent corruption cases from being weaponized. Still, those opposed to the bill say that this is just a naked attempt by politicians to shield themselves from ever being prosecuted. Nepal’s legal process is so slow and cumbersome that it is often impossible for corruption cases to be registered within five years of discovery. Investigating the matter and collecting evidence and witnesses alone can take five years.
If the amendment is passed, then all of the parties benefit. Oli’s alleged role in corruption at the Giribandhu Tea Estate, even if proven to be true, will not be prosecuted since it happened over five years ago. Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai, former prime ministers and leaders of the Maoist revolution, are both alleged to have siphoned billions from the state over payments to their combatants. The Congress’ role in the Bhutanese refugee scam could also be thrown out.
However, it seems politicians from across the spectrum are against the statute of limitations. Gagan Thapa of the Nepali Congress, even though his party is currently in government, has spoken out vehemently against the five-year limit, as have Rabi Lamichhane and others from Rastriya Swatantra Party, and the Maoist’s Narayani Sharma. Even politicians from the UML are hedging their responses, saying that they haven’t discussed the statute of limitations in detail and thus have not decided whether to support it.
So, if there is some form of cross-party consensus that the statute of limitations isn’t the right way to go, why introduce the bill, why did it pass the National Assembly without comment, and why has it not been withdrawn? It’s all a little suspicious. But given the hullabaloo over the proposed amendment, it may not pass.
But whether the amendment passes or not, it is not as if corruption will be reined in anytime soon. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the constitutional body responsible for investigating corruption, is largely toothless and has instead been turned into a cudgel to beat political opponents. CIAA chiefs themselves have been notoriously corrupt, with the most outlandish persona being Lokman Singh Karki, who terrorized bureaucrats and politicians alike until the Supreme Court removed him. (Karki’s appointment as chief of the CIAA gave rise to this brilliant cartoon by Batsyayan.)
Even if a more honorable person occupies the CIAA chair, the institution has been hollowed out and made toothless. For one, the CIAA cannot investigate the Cabinet’s ‘policy decisions’; it can only look into ministerial decisions and bureaucratic action. “The Commission, pursuant to the Act, shall not take any action in matters relating to any business or decisions taken at meetings of any House of Parliament or of any committee or anything said or done by any member at such meetings, or any policy decisions taken by the Council of Ministers or any committee thereof or judicial actions of a court of law,” states Section 4 (b) of the CIAA Act. This clause, like the statute of limitations, was allegedly put in place to prevent political reprisals, but it has instead led to even minor decisions that could be controversial being escalated to the Cabinet.
Furthermore, earlier in February, Parliament unanimously passed an amendment to the Money Laundering Prevention Act. One of the amendments allowed individuals to legalize income without a proper source by paying taxes. Effectively, if someone amassed a lot of money but could not prove where it came from, they could pay a certain amount of tax and keep the money, as long as it is not linked to anything illegal. Earlier, the state could confiscate any money that couldn’t be shown to have come from a legitimate source. So, if you have a barrel of cash in your closet, you could just pay tax on it, and everything would be fine. The burden of proof would be on the police or any other investigative agency to prove that that money came from illegal means. Many business houses and politicians will certainly take advantage of this new provision.
Corruption is ingrained in our psyche. It has become so normalized that you’d be stupid not to indulge. After all, everyone else — from tigers to flies — is doing it.
That’s all for this week. I will be back next Friday, in your emails, for the next edition of KALAM Weekly.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please consider sharing it with others who might enjoy weekly updates from Nepal or consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading KALAM Weekly! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Here is my take on statute of limitations and corruption. I don't think there is enough understanding on this issue. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/corruption-and-statute-of-limitations/?categoryId=opinion