Other corruption is wrong, where can we say that political corruption is right? If any policy decision has caused corruption, it should come under scrutiny. - Suryanath Upadhyay, Former Chief Commissioner, Authority
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Stakeholders have said that if the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority Third Amendment Bill is passed, it will be against the United Nations Convention. Experts have said that placing the decision of the Council of Ministers in the bill under the authority's investigation jurisdiction is not Nepal's choice but an international obligation.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption defines corruption in any form as a punishable offence. The convention issued by the United Nations in 2003 was approved by Nepal in 2011.
As more than 30 laws need to be enacted or amended to implement the convention, the government submitted some law amendment proposals. Out of that, the third amendment bill of authority has been brought by the government.
Prime Minister and UML President KP Sharma Oli and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba disagreed with the decision of the Council of Ministers about the authority to investigate, the bill has stalled. The leadership of the ruling party has disagreed with the report submitted by the sub-committee formed under the State Order and Good Governance Committee to define which issues are policy-related and which are not. According to
experts, after the implementation of the convention, it is necessary to bring political corruption under the scrutiny of the authority.
'The Convention of the United Nations prohibits the decision-maker from making decisions in such a way as to give him any unfair advantage and for that, it is asked to create a law on conflict of interest,' says Padmini Pradhanang, the former president of Transparency International Nepal, 'Decision making by the Council of Ministers in order to cause corruption is against the conflict of interest jurisprudence. Yes and it should come under scrutiny.'
In the report of the sub-committee formed under the State Arrangements Committee, it is mentioned that any decision made in relation to public procurement is not a policy, except in cases where the Council of Ministers has to decide according to the law.
It is mentioned in the revised bill that a decision made by an officer or agency is not a policy even if it is made by another officer or agency. Similarly, it is written that a decision made to benefit, facilitate or benefit only a particular person or organization is not policy.
Suryanath Upadhyay, the former chief commissioner of the authority, also said that the rules of jurisprudence are not sufficient to prevent corruption caused by policy decisions from being investigated. "Where else can corruption be said to be wrong?" He said, "Any policy decision should come under the scope of investigation and this should be the law." He says that in order to restrict it, at least the decision of the contract should not be made by the Council of Ministers, and if so, it should be brought under scrutiny.
'In the Lauda case, I called the incumbent Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and asked him for an explanation,' said Upadhyay. I said it happened.'' He says that this provision can prevent large-scale corruption at the level. The said writ came up for payment on 2nd January. "The provision to exempt corruption from investigation goes against the constitution and good governance," he said, "Parliament must correct it."
