In the name of sustaining the coalition government, corruption and irregularities were increasing in the country for 3 years after 2005. Incidents involving not only employees but also MPs and ministers in irregularities were visible on the surface. Due to the weakness of the government, there was no possibility of action. Rather, there was a need for protection. Even though the Authority filed a case of corruption, the courts were not able to effectively implement it. Therefore, the Authority had proposed the formation of a special court to hear corruption cases. Questions were being raised about the commission amount received in the course of transactions by government agencies or companies.

In this background, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives had called the then Prime Minister to inform him about corruption and government financial irregularities. The committee had prepared a report on corruption and irregularities. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Water Resources Shailaja Acharya and Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat were also present in the meeting of the Accounts Committee along with the Prime Minister.

In the Accounts Committee meeting on April 6, 2016, Prime Minister Girija Prasad argued that commission fees were also responsible for the increase in corruption. He had told the Public Accounts Committee, ‘Making government work and commission business transparent will stop corruption to some extent.’ He had proposed imposing a tax on commission fees. Referring to the fact that the Parliament had passed a resolution long ago to make the commission business transparent, the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad had expressed his commitment to implementing it. He had said, ‘During the Congress majority government, efforts were made to make the commission system transparent and bring it under the tax net, but later there was confusion.’ The committee’s acting chairman, Deep Kumar Upadhyay, had presented figures estimating that if the commission fees could be brought under the tax net, the government would earn more than Rs 1 billion annually.

The Accounts Committee had provided written information on corruption, financial irregularities, and embezzlement in government offices. The committee had submitted its report on the study of irregularities to the Prime Minister. The committee had submitted a report containing suggestions on the activities of thematic ministries to the new government to make it easier to work against irregularities. The committee had called the Prime Minister and ministers of the previous government for discussion. At that time, Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa and the ministers had admitted that corruption and smuggling were rampant.

Acting Chairman Upadhyay had informed the Prime Minister about the increasing trend of not auditing accounts, not reconciling transactions and embezzling revenue. Upadhyay had given examples of violations of the law by the Council of Ministers and MPs in the past and said that transparency is a weapon to control corruption. The committee had informed that government public institutions were in a state of collapse. The report mentioned that there had been delays in the construction of foreign investment projects. The report suggested that action should be taken against consultants, advisors and office heads who did not complete the work on time. The committee had suggested that the work description of foreign consultants should be clarified and made responsible for their work.

Demand for a special court

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority had demanded a special court to deal with corruption cases. The Authority had prepared a draft law for the purpose and submitted it to the government. In the meeting of the Accounts Committee, when members asked why the cases filed by the Authority always failed, the Commissioner of the Authority, Madhav Dutt Bhatt, informed about the need for a special court. He had said, ‘If corruption is to be prevented, a special court should be formed with experts who have studied the subject of corruption.’

He argued that corruption is a ‘white collar crime’ and said that the court was looking for visible and anecdotal evidence of this crime as well. He had said that in such crimes, the case should be decided based on feeling rather than evidence. The Commission had filed cases against one minister and 3 dozen government officials in a year, but had not won any. The Commission had also demanded a special court after learning from that. The Authority had said that a special court was necessary due to problems such as the pressure of other cases in the general court, the court treating corruption cases like other cases, and the lack of experts in the court.

In the meeting, Madhusudan Gorkhali, the Chief Commissioner of the Commission, informed that there was no law for the Authority to take action on the issues mentioned in the Auditor General's report. When the MPs asked whether the Authority could take action on the irregularities and irregularities confirmed by the Auditor General, Gorkhali replied that there was no law.

He had said that there was no law for another constitutional body to interfere in the matter confirmed by one constitutional body. But Gorkhali said that if the Auditor General sends a letter, the action could be taken forward. The news prepared by the Accounts Committee based on the issues raised in the discussions held with the aim of discussing the increasing corruption in the country, the amount received in the name of commissions, and the reasons for the failure of the Authority to succeed in the cases filed by it was published in Kantipur Daily on 2055 Baisakh 7 under the title ‘Making the Commission transparent and bringing it under the tax net: Prime Minister’.