A proposal for a law that would limit corruption to only five years

The bill to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act 2059 was registered in the National Assembly on January 6, 2076 by the then government led by KP Sharma Oli. The National Assembly passed it on Chait 27, 2079 and sent it to the House of Representatives.

Prime Minister Oli, who was present on the first day of the discussion on the State Order and Good Governance Committee on July 22, did not give any response about the time limit. It is stated in the

bill, "A case must be prosecuted within five years from the date of knowing that such an act has been committed." There is a provision that no matter if you have retired from any profession, you will not be hindered from taking action or prosecuting a case according to this Act within five years from the date of retirement.

After the discussion about the limit in the parliamentary committee, the top official of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority submitted a new proposal to the secretariat of the committee, including the need to keep the limit for 10 years instead of 5 years. Experts have expressed concern that if the bill is passed, it will not be possible to prosecute those who exploit state resources with the argument that the limit has been exceeded.

Umesh Mainali, the former chairman and former secretary of the Public Service Commission, questioned who is being protected by making a law that imposes a statute of limitations on corruption cases.

should not be limited. A provision should be made that a case will be filed after it is known. The wording of the date of knowledge is unclear," he told Kantipur, "if the time limit is kept, many people get immunity in corruption cases. Mainali says that if the statute of limitations is passed, those who committed corruption before 2075 will get away.

Senior advocate Srihari Aryal also says that it is not appropriate to limit the corruption case. Corruption is a crime against the nation. It should not be limited to 5 years. What will the corrupt person do if the statute of limitations expires without a case?'' He said, 'Corruption cases are governmental, they are handled by the authority, there is no statute of limitations. Let it be known that those who commit corruption can be brought to justice.' Congress General Minister Gagan Thapa has put forward the amendment to remove the limit, but he says that all the MPs of the party in the committee are unanimous on it. We are unanimous that the limit of MPs in the State Law Committee should be removed. We are the ones who give the party's line in the committee," said Thapa. "There is a consensus among the revisionists and committee members of the Congress party that there should be no limit to investigating and prosecuting corruption. Even if there is a proposal brought by the Prime Minister, we will not accept the limit.''

The UML parliamentarians in the committee say that they have not been able to decide whether to remove or keep the limit as they have not been able to reach an agreement on the arrangement of the limit. Committee member Raghuji Pant said that the MPs will give their views on the bill. Committee member Leelanath Shrestha, who is also the former law minister, also said that the decision on the limit will be made after discussion with the chief commissioner and commissioner and experts and study of international practice. We understand this matter with the authority, the Attorney General, the Law Commission, the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, etc. Our opinion is that we should proceed only after studying," UML MP Shrestha said. "I understand the sentiments of honorable people and say that there should be no time limit." Mahesh Bertaula, the chief whip of UML, said that the five-year time limit of the bill could not be discussed in the party parliamentary group. "The MPs are keeping their words on the subject of the limit. If there is a minority or a majority, the party will decide,' he said, 'lawmaking is the jurisdiction of MPs, they have discretion.' told In the committee meeting on Sunday, she said, 'Even when corruption and irregularities are known, the way to take action should be kept open, there should be no limit.' MP Sobita Gautam said that the MPs of the party registered the amendment after deciding that the limit should not be kept. We cannot agree that there should be a limit for prosecuting the corrupt. In order to prevent the case from being prosecuted until the five-year time limit is set, corrupt people hide evidence and use various measures to shorten the time limit. If you do that, will you get rid of corruption?'' She said, 'Because there are weaknesses in the development of the working system, if there is a limitation in the law on corruption cases, even if he commits more than 10 million corruption, he will only be sentenced to 8 to 10 years She has objected to the arrangements being made.

'The jurisdiction of the authority should not be increased'

Senior advocate Aryal, who submitted a report to the government after studying the justification of the authority in 2056, said that the authority should not be extended to the private sector. "Akhtiyar tries to take all the rights, but what is its capacity?" Judging by the work done by the authority till date, it is a failed organization. It has failed more because of political reasons," he said. "The agency that prosecutes corrupt people is the authority, just like the police that investigate murders. If the police is accountable to the government, to whom is the authority accountable? If this organization, which is not responsible to anyone, increases its authority, it will abuse its authority even more.'

Lokmansingh Karki and Deepkumar Basnyat and Commissioner Rajnarayan Pathak committed corruption when they were the chiefs of the authority, he added, "The authority itself is in a controversial state, if the authority is increased, the disorder will increase from the authority." It is not a responsible organization. When the discussion of amending the constitution is going on and questions are raised about its justification, the authority should also be considered.'

Former Secretary Mainali says that the authority's jurisdiction should not be expanded and policy decisions should be explained. He said that the authority is currently seeking more rights than its capacity, but it is not acting according to the rights it has received. The authority should not seek more jurisdiction than its capacity. Now, as much as he has got, he has not been able to work on it. There are other organizations looking at the private sector, they should be made effective and given legal autonomy. Money Laundering Investigation Department should be made legally autonomous, he said.

Demand for explanation of policy decisions

Congress MP Hridayram Thani said that there should be a provision for investigation in decisions from the local level to the cabinet in the Prevention of Corruption Act. He says that 'policy decision' should be explained in law. Ex-Secretary Mainali mentioned that the decision that can be made by the director of the government department is going to be made into a policy decision and said that it should be explained in the law to stop it.

Chairman of the State Management Committee, Ramhari Khatiwada, said that there will be a discussion with the chief commissioner and commissioners and the amending parliamentarians on matters of interest to the authority, including the limit. According to him, there will be a discussion with the authority in the meeting of the committee on July 31.