The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority has decried the tendency of governments at all three levels to make policy decisions through the Cabinet or similar authorities at provincial and local levels to avoid investigation by the anti-graft body.

Making public its 46-point suggestion to the government on Wednesday, the anti-graft body called for an end to such practice. The commission said that the suggestions were provided to the government after an interaction with government secretaries and department chiefs on October 29 and 30.

“There should be an end to the practice of taking issues supposed to be decided by the ministry, department or secretariat concerned to the Cabinet, council or assembly,” one of the suggestions reads. “The agency assigned by the law to perform the task must make its own decision.”

As the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act-1991 bars the anti-graft body from investigating the decisions taken by the Cabinet, there is a growing tendency among policymakers of forwarding the matters to the Cabinet for a decision even for the tasks to be performed from a minister or a secretary level to avoid investigation by the CIAA.

Section 4 (B) of the CIAA Act states: “The Commission, pursuant to the Act-1991, 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.”

Citing the same provision, the anti-graft body decided to exempt two former prime ministers—Baburam Bhattarai and Madhav Kumar Nepal—from corruption charges in relation to the Lalita Niwas land scam, giving an impression that this provision is being misused to shield top politicians from prosecution.

“We suggested that the bureaucratic leadership not forward the issues supposed to be decided by a ministry, department or a subordinate government agency to the Cabinet,” said Narahari Ghimire, spokesperson for the CIAA. “All the decisions the Cabinet takes cannot be policy decisions.”

With policy decisions providing legal protection to senior politicians, the government has kept similar provisions in the bill to amend the CIAA-Act registered at the National Assembly.

Instead, the bill has allowed even the provincial cabinet to take policy decisions to save senior politicians from the provincial government from being investigated by the anti-graft body. The commission has long urged the government and Parliament to review this legal provision.

Besides suggestions with regard to policy decisions, the anti-graft body has also called for full compliance with the Public Procurement Act and its regulations when it comes to public procurement.

It has called for an end to the practice of amending the Public Procurement Regulations frequently to serve the interests of targeted individuals. For example, the regulation has been amended nine times since its amendment in May 2019, allegedly to serve the interests of some people. Since the introduction of the regulation in 2007, it was amended five times until 2019.

The corruption watchdog has also called for an end to the influence of interest groups in the lawmaking process. “The CIAA has received complaints that those involved in public contracts influence the lawmaking process related to public procurement and those involved in banking businesses influence the lawmaking related to the banking sector,” the CIAA said.

Nepal is supposed to introduce a law to prevent the conflict of interest in lawmaking—also to comply with anti-money laundering standards. Lawmakers having a particular interest in some businesses are inducted into the relevant parliamentary body, leading to the situation.

Amid concerns about handing over public works to local users groups involving the cadres of political parties, the CIAA has called for doing away with the practice of assigning such groups to undertake tasks that are technically complex and need machinery use.

The commission also wants to do away with the practice of changing the customs duty on imports through the Financial Bill every year. The questions are being asked about alleged favouritism to certain business interests while revising the tariff every year through the Financial Bill.

In this context, the CIAA has suggested the government change the rates by introducing a Tariff Act. “It will be effective and legal only if the taxation and waiver of taxation are done through a regular session of Parliament,” the commission said.

It also suggested the need for a study on the effectiveness of the tax waiver provided by the government to select groups and businesses.

In its annual reports, the Office of Auditor General has been raising questions about the effectiveness of tax waiver.

The CIAA has suggested auctioning off confiscated vehicles and other goods by law enforcement agencies every year. “Take departmental action against senior officials for failing to auction them off,” the CIAA said. Many vehicles and other goods continue to litter government office premises due to the failure to get rid of them on time.