The fake Bhutanese refugee scam and fresh investigation into the Lalita Niwas scam have reignited debates on the level of corruption in Nepal and if only ‘small fry’ will be prosecuted while the ‘big fish’ get away. Khem Raj Regmi, former government secretary and former chairperson of Transparency International Nepal, has been keenly observing these scams. Prithvi Man Shrestha of Post talked to Regmi about his assessment of the government’s handling of these two scams. Excerpts:

The Puspa Kamal Dahal-led government has been talking up its anti-corruption credentials after 30 people including former ministers were prosecuted in a fake Bhutanese refugee scam and after fresh investigations were initiated in the Lalita Niwas scam. How do you assess the government’s performance in these scams?

When CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli was leading the government, he had proclaimed that neither would he commit corruption nor would he let others do so. But when large-scale corruption cases emerged under his watch, his response was weak. Even the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority appeared to have come under his influence as the probe into some major scams involving the leaders close to him was halted. That’s why, when the latest investigation into the Bhutanese refugee scam started, we thought the investigation would again cover only some senior bureaucrats. But then senior leaders of major political parties including former Deputy Prime Minister Top Bahadur Rayamajhi from the UML and Former Home Minister Bal Krishna Khad from the ruling Nepali Congress were also prosecuted.

I don’t think these leaders could have been prosecuted without certain backing of top political leadership. In Nepal, the police alone will not dare take action against senior political leaders without receiving strong backing from the top political leadership. Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha has also repeatedly tried to reassure people that no one involved in the scam will be spared. We have to give the benefit of doubt to the current government that it is serious about taking action against all those who are guilty.

When it comes to the Lalita Niwas scandal, the CIAA has already registered corruption cases at the Special Court against several people including a few former ministers. Now, the police have initiated investigation into those who were involved in forgery of government documents in order to transfer government land at Lalita Niwas in Baluwatar in the name of individuals.

In fact, the two related cases in the Lalita Niwas scam should have been registered in the court at the same time as corruption was committed through the medium of forgery of government documents. Irrespective of the delay in investigation into the forgery, the new police action is commendable.

Don’t you think Prime Minister Dahal, who is himself accused of pilfering funds provided to former Maoist combatants, is pushing ahead with these investigations to get political mileage?

The prime minister might be interested in deriving political benefit by initiating investigation into these scams, especially as his party’s leaders have so far not been found to be involved. But it is his duty to take action against the guilty in these scams. We should not see these investigations through the prism of which political party benefits from them. If these investigations help create a narrative that nobody involved in serious corruption will go unpunished irrespective of how powerful they are, it will discourage similar corruption in the future. There is also the concern regarding prosecution of political leaders with weak cases. But let’s at this moment give the government the benefit of doubt.

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Police had submitted its investigation report to the District Attorney Office, Kathmandu last year too. But it was returned to the police. Now the CIB is initiating another investigation by arresting some people allegedly involved in the case. What is your assessment of this?

Like I said, the corruption and forgery cases should have been taken forward simultaneously. Last year, the District Attorney Office, Kathmandu returned the CIB investigation report to the CIB itself, citing gaps in investigation. We later heard that the immediate attorney general had ordered the District Attorney Office not to register a case against those allegedly involved in the Baluwatar scam on forgery charges, leading to the return of the investigation report. Now, the police are again investigating the forged documents. That is a positive development.

Have you found any shortcomings in the investigation and prosecutions in the case of the two scams?

One shortcoming that I identified in the fake Bhutanese refugee scam is that police failed to investigate all those who were named by some defendants as beneficiaries from the scam.

For example, some defendants have said in their statements to the police that they provided money to certain political leaders and people who were close to them. But these people close to top leaders were not investigated. At least, there should have been an inquiry into whether the statements made by the defendants were true. It is a major shortcoming in police investigation.

When it comes to Lalita Niwas scam, police have now initiated further investigation on forgery charges. But there is a shortcoming in prosecution of those allegedly involved in scam for corruption charges. Because of obvious political influence, corruption cases were not filed against the son of UML leader Bishnu Poudel and current Supreme Court justice Kumar Regmi because they promised to return the land they had bought inside the Lalita Niwas. We are hearing Poudel’s son had received eight aanas of land in a gift, which I have not verified. For just committing to return the lands, they were spared. But the same opportunity was not granted to all other accused who could also save themselves from prosecution by committing to return the land. This is against the principle of equality of justice.

Another shortcoming in the CIAA’s prosecution is that the anti-graft body only filed corruption cases against former ministers and bureaucrats who were involved in preparing the documents and submitting the proposal of expanding the Prime Minister’s Residence by providing alternative lands to the ‘tillers.’ But the prime ministers who presided over Cabinets that took these decisions were spared from prosecution, citing the legal provision that the Cabinet’s policy decisions cannot be investigated by the CIAA.

In this, the CIAA appears to have reached a compromise with political leaders. All decisions of the Cabinet cannot be policy decisions. How can a Cabinet decision of giving alternative lands to certain tillers be a policy decision? This issue should have been dealt with by a land revenue staff but the proposal was taken to the Cabinet in order to shield those involved in the scam from CIAA investigation. In my view, the CIAA should have prosecuted former prime ministers too, just to see whether the court would view such decisions as ‘policy decisions’.

Former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli blamed the current government for targeting UML leaders in the investigation on the fake Bhutanese refugee scam. What is your view on the matter?

I don’t think that the UML leaders have been selectively prosecuted in this case. The current government’s survival rests on the Nepali Congress but the latter’s senior leader Bal Krishna Khand has also been prosecuted. So, I believe there is no truth to Oli’s accusation. In fact, the Oli government's decision to form a Bal Krishna Panthi-led committee to recommend measures to settle the issue of Bhutanese refugees who failed to go abroad for third country settlement is itself suspicious.

As the issue also has an international dimension, it is curious that there was no representation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the committee. Based on Oli’s statement, I feel that he is trying to politicise the issue to discredit the investigation into his party’s leaders.

Why did successive governments fail to stop the transfer of the government lands of Lalita Niwas into the hands of individuals?

Evidence shows that only 20-22 ropanies of lands belonging to Subarna Sumsher Rana were seized by the Panchayat regime. But then the regime had also acquired other lands by paying due compensations. Yet a conspiracy was hatched to transfer the ownership of even these legally acquired lands to individuals. It appears that the land mafia took favours from key officials of the state to ensure that the government’s lands would end into the hands of individuals. Even in the past, complaints were registered in the CIAA regarding transfer of the government lands in the name of individuals. But the anti-graft body failed to act. No government made a serious attempt to save the state’s land from being transferred in the name of individuals.