The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives is again in the news, and again for the wrong reason. In the not too distant past, the committee’s decisions used to spark vital public debates. But of late, the lower house panel has become a ‘matter of discussion’ for its ineffectiveness, so much so that the committee has failed to even convene its meetings. The panel sat on Tuesday after a month. Most of its members airing their views on the day expressed concern over the committee’s failure to sit even as there are multiple issues affecting common people’s lives and concerning the expenditure from state coffers. Committee members said the body has been unable to carry out even its routine jobs such as preparing its annual report and presenting it to the House.

One strength of the House committees is that they can hold meetings and work on issues irrespective of whether Parliament is in session. The thematic panels therefore can pick up issues of public concern as and when needed, conduct rigorous debates and thorough research, and ask government agencies to take urgent actions, which is not possible from the plenary when it is not in session.

Even among the House panels, the PAC has high importance in countries with parliamentary systems. So is the case in Nepal. Historically, the PAC has investigated big corruption scams and made important decisions. At times, it has stopped the executive agencies from making or implementing wrong decisions. But the panel, which plays a vital role in making the government accountable and in promoting transparency and good governance, is of late losing its credibility and public trust.

Impartial results are expected of House committees as lawmakers in these bodies are believed to work by rising above partisan interests, with cross-party lawmakers taking merit-based decisions and standing united while piling pressure on the government and its agencies for the implementation of the committee’s decisions and recommendations. Some differences among the members based on their political parties’ official lines is understandable. And yet, the history of parliamentary committees in Nepal shows lawmakers from rival parties maintaining a minimum level of understanding to press the government to correct its wrong decisions.

When lawmakers grill officials over irregularities or abuse of authority, heated exchanges between committee members and officials representing a government ministry or department are to be expected. But of late the lawmakers often indulge in bitter arguments among themselves, making the committee’s meetings inconclusive and even deadlocked. For instance, the PAC members remain sharply divided over Kul Man Ghising, managing director of Nepal Electricity Authority, over his decision to halt power supply to the industries not clearing their dues owed to the utility. The committee couldn’t give a clear direction to the government due to this division.

Repeated news of corruption and abuse of authority have disenchanted the public. There is thus the risk of the republic system being the target of public ire. In such a situation, genuine works to control corruption and ensure good governance by vital agencies such as the PAC, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the Special Court, and Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police become crucial. Their dysfunctionality will only bolster people’s suspicions of the new system. As opposition lawmakers have blamed the PAC chair Rishikesh Pokharel for its failure, Speaker Devraj Ghimire must take the initiative to breathe some life into the inactive committee.