Don't use abstract terminology in relation to boundaries

In the amendments placed in 45 and 29 respectively of the original act, it is said that the case should be prosecuted within five years from the date of knowing that such an act has been committed. Similarly, it is said that if a person holding a public office has committed corruption while in office and if it is not possible to take immediate action according to the law, there will be no hindrance to take action or prosecute the case within five years from the date of retirement. In the

bill, it is said that such limit will not be maintained for prosecuting corruption by misappropriating government, community or public property or property owned or controlled by Nepal government, state government or local level or public organization. Those bills which were passed by the Legislation Management Committee of the National Assembly have reached the State Order and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives.

Article 45 of the Prevention of Corruption Act states that there will be no hindrance in prosecuting a public servant in connection with corruption even after retirement. There are no sub-sections in the original law but three separate sub-sections are included in the bill. On the other hand, in subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act, a statute of limitations has been practiced that "If the Commission does not take action within five years of the commission of the act, no action shall be taken under this Act after that period." Section 29 of the same Act provides that a person who has misused authority by holding public office can be prosecuted after retirement. There is no limitation in the original Act. However, in the bill, it is said that there will be no hindrance in taking action or prosecuting the case within five years from the date of retirement.

In big corruption cases like misappropriation of government property, investigation and case can be filed against anyone at any time. However, two provisions that are being debated and doubted by many appear in the bill. First, the corruption offense should be prosecuted within five years from the date of knowing that such act has been committed. According to experts, this provision of five-year limitation will be attracted in cases such as submitting fake certificates, taking bribes or commissions without causing loss/damage to government property, and acquiring illegal assets.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the state does not suffer a great loss, but does not have to bear stress for a long time because of the allegations. Secondly, the officials of the constitutional bodies who can only be removed by impeachment, are also provided for investigation and trial. They are not barred from taking action or prosecuting them within five years. The Legislation Committee of the National Assembly has passed the provision that after the retirement, 'cases can be tried within five years from the date of notification'. If this provision is also included in the Act, the five-year limitation period will be imposed for taking action or lawsuit against the mentioned officials, if that does not happen, they will be legally freed from the charges against them.

Several provisions have come in concrete form in the amendment bill. Progressive too. But confusion has increased due to some of the terminology used in the bill or the report passed by the Legislative Management Committee, legal terminology has also been abstracted. One of them is the provision of 'knowing'. Such terminology creates confusion - how did you know? The date of the rumor of corruption, the date of the discussion on social media or the date of the complaint? If the subject of 'knowing' is not explained in a concrete and clear way, it can be interpreted or interpreted according to oneself later. It is difficult to confirm the date an individual or organization knows. On the same basis, if the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission, with the aim of protecting someone, says that they knew about any corruption five years ago, now the time limit has passed, what is the basis for refutation? Why is this question so important at this time? In Nepal, there is a tendency to find loopholes in the constitution and laws rather than interpreting or using them according to their meaning. It cannot be said that its effect was not seen in the Commission.

In the same way, in any kind of corruption, if you try to emphasize only the five-year time limit, it will lead to a technical point like whether the time limit is left or cut rather than whether it is corruption or not. What can be the scientific basis of the provision that the corrupt person will be punished if the case is investigated within five years, but not after five years and one day? Rather, the limitation should be realized in the internal commitment and self-challenge of the commission. He should himself endeavor to investigate the case and register the case at the earliest. Capacity should be developed for that. If this can be done, no one will have to bear the stress of being accused of corruption for the rest of their life.