The Authority, which has already filed a case against 56 people, including 5 former ministers and 9 former secretaries, for 'corruption' in the contract process for the construction of Pokhara Airport, has launched a supplementary investigation into irregularities that occurred during the construction process from 2074 to 2079 after the contract was awarded.

The parliamentary investigation committee has concluded that at least 10 billion rupees were involved in corruption in the construction of the airport. The Authority has started an investigation into this embezzlement in the construction.

The study for the construction of the airport began in 2065 and the cost was set at around 145.559 million dollars in 2068. The then Minister of Tourism, Minister of Finance, secretaries of both ministries and law, Director General of the Authority, contractors, etc., had ‘increased the cost’ and on 8 Jestha 2071, the Authority had signed a construction agreement with the Chinese company CAMC for 215.965 million dollars.

8 billion ‘flew’ at Pokhara Airport: Authority’s case against 56 including 5 former ministers

The work began after the final agreement was reached on 13 Chaitra 2074 to take a loan from the Chinese Exim Bank and construct it through the Chinese company CAMC. The CIAA had initiated the investigation after irregularities began to come to light soon after the airport was inaugurated on 14 Paush 2079 BS. The case of ‘8 billion rupees of corruption’ during the period of the contract agreement reached the special court on Sunday. ‘The first phase of the case has been filed in court by making the defendants involved in the process of awarding the contract by increasing the cost of the project through illegal decisions and processes,’ says an CIAA official involved in the investigation. ‘Now, an investigation has been initiated to conduct supplementary prosecution in the case of irregularities during the construction.’

To investigate the scam in the airport construction, the Accounts Committee of the dissolved House of Representatives had formed a 12-member parliamentary investigation subcommittee under the coordination of then MP and RPP Chairman Rajendra Prasad Lingden on 13 Ashad 2081 BS. After 10 months, the subcommittee submitted its report to the Accounts Committee on 28 Baisakh 2082 BS. The report pointed out that at least 10 billion rupees had been corrupted in the airport construction. 

Pokhara Airport scam: The initial cost estimate was revised

The Accounts Committee had directed the Authority to conduct further investigation into this and bring the culprits to justice. The same report and the facts/evidence collected by the Authority have been taken forward as a supplementary investigation. The report states that the airport cost was increased by Rs 6.56 billion in violation of the public procurement law, Rs 2.22 billion was returned as tax exemption, an additional Rs 320 million was paid for the cutting of Chhinedanda, and although the original contract mentioned an ‘additional item’ of $15.23 million, the final bill showed an ‘additional’ amount of $2.436 million. 

Similarly, the report of the parliamentary investigation committee also mentions irregularities such as the payment of 742,659 US dollars by the authority for the installation of the ‘HVAC’ system contrary to the original agreement, the construction of a fuel storage facility at a cost of 220,000 US dollars within the airport, but the fact that a depot was not built despite the original agreement. 

The parliamentary subcommittee has revealed the facts of how the irregularities were committed in 19 points. The series of irregularities related to the construction of the airport are as pointed out by the Accounts Committee and an official of the authority says that it is being investigated through a detailed investigation. The report mentions that the soil test report of the runway was completed in a short time, and that there is no reason or justification for the construction of ‘runway’, ‘taxiway’ and four ‘aerobridges’ and other equipment beyond the original agreement and design of the authority. The report concludes that since the gravel mixed with the stones and soil that were removed when the runway was lowered was used for the 'filling' of the runway, the construction contractor had to pay a royalty and transport it from 5 km away, and since the 'subbase' was available on site, contrary to the agreement, there was 'additional benefit and irregularity' in this.