The government has formed a five-member inquiry commission under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court Justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari, comprising former Supreme Court Justices Purushottam Parajuli and Chandiraj Dhakal, former Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Nepal Police Ganesh KC, and Chartered Accountant Prakash Lamsal, to investigate the assets of high-ranking officials and employees in governance/administration and public positions during the last 20 years (2062/63 to 2082/83). What will be the jurisdiction of the commission? Based on which law was the commission formed? What is the term of office of the commission? What kind of people fall under the scope of the inquiry? Whether or not the commission will have the power to take statements and arrest, and its jurisdiction, are yet to be determined. However, with the decision to form the commission, an attempt has been made to explain in 7 questions and answers the path and process through which the assets of those holding public positions during this period are investigated. What is the background behind the government forming the commission to investigate the assets of people who have been in the top leadership of the country's political and civil service administration for the past two decades? The decision to form the commission under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court Justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari was taken at the Cabinet meeting on 2 Baisakh to investigate the assets of high-ranking officials and employees holding public positions since 2062/63. This commission has been assigned the responsibility of investigating the assets of high-ranking officials and employees, considering the last 20 years as the 'Lakshman Rekha'. The government has mentioned that in the second phase, another commission will be formed to investigate the assets of officials and employees from the period 2046 to 2062.

However, even though the decision to form the commission has been made, its scope of work, jurisdiction, and who will be brought under the purview of the investigation have not been clarified. In addition, the issue of whether the commission will have the power to take statements and arrest has not been decided. Whereas the Investigation Act 2026 states that such commissions can also exercise the powers exercised by the court. With the decision to form the commission, the way has now been opened to bring the assets of those holding public office under the purview of judicial review.

• How will the Bhandari Commission work now?

Even though the decision to form the commission has been made, its mandate has not been specified. However, in the past, such commissions were initially given a period of 3 months and the Council of Ministers extended the period based on need and merit. The commission can meet and decide on the working procedures.

What work did the previously formed property investigation commissions in Nepal do? How is the Bhandari Commission different from them?

• On 20 Falgun 2058, the then government formed the Assets Investigation Commission under the chairmanship of the sitting Supreme Court judge Bhairav ​​Prasad Lamsal as per Section 3 of the ‘Investigation Commission Act-2026’. This commission was mandated to investigate the assets of government branch officers, including the Prime Minister, ministers, political and administrative high-ranking officials and other employees, including the sitting Chief Justice. The commission had issued letters to more than 40,000 people during the investigation. At that time, the assets of more than 30,000 people were investigated. But this report was not made public.

What did the previous Lamsal Commission and the Royal Commission do?

• On 19 Magh 2061, the then King Gyanendra Shah overthrew the government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba and started direct rule under his own leadership. Two weeks later, on 5 Falgun 2061, a five-member Royal Commission for Corruption Control was formed under the chairmanship of former administrator Bhakta Bahadur Koirala. The commission had detained former Prime Minister Deuba, former Minister Prakash Man Singh and others and conducted investigations. During that period, investigations were also conducted based on public complaints.

But a writ was filed in the Supreme Court against this. The Supreme Court questioned the formation of the Royal Commission legally and constitutionally, and finally on 1 Falgun 2062, a 5-member bench including the Chief Justice dismissed the commission with a verdict that it was invalid. With the dismissal of the commission, if those arrested and detained on its basis were released, its legal validity also ended.

• According to the Inquiry Act, the commission formed by the Council of Ministers can investigate the property and make suggestions to the government. The Lamsal Commission of 2058 is one of them. The Council of Ministers led by Deuba had decided to form the Lamsal Commission at that time. After that decision, the then King Gyanendra formed this commission in consultation with the Judicial Council. Because at that time, the commission was formed according to the restrictive provisions of Article 92 of the ‘Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal-2047’. Article 92 of the constitution provided that ‘a judge shall not be transferred or assigned to any other position’. The report of this commission was not made public.

What is the status of the recommendation/report given by the commission formed under the Inquiry Act? How is it implemented?

Experts on the constitution and law say that it is appropriate for the government to take the initiative to investigate the assets of high-ranking employees and officials through the Inquiry Commission. However, they comment that the impartiality of the work done by the commission thus formed and the conclusions drawn from the investigation method/methodology and process, its effectiveness and propriety will depend on how the government views it.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada says that it is the government’s right to investigate the assets of which people and how, over what period of time. However, he comments that it is not possible to say for sure since the ‘TOR’ of the commission has not been finalized. Although the commission’s report is a ‘matter of recommendation’ for the government, it does not have the authority to punish or impose punishment on its own,’ says Khatiwada.

• ‘Such commissions formed by the government are to find out the facts, they do not have the authority to punish or make decisions/orders on their own. They can investigate the facts and even make recommendations on who is responsible for what,’ says former judge Khatiwada. ‘It will give a report based on that, and the authorized body will look into the legal process accordingly.’ He says that if corruption is found in the investigation, the investigation will be carried out by the authority.

‘The Lamsal Commission was formed yesterday. A report was also submitted after a very serious investigation, but it was not made public,' he said, 'On the basis of that, action should have been taken against some, but it was not. It is not the fault of the commission, but the fault of the government.' He said that the 'TOR' will determine what the Bhandari Commission can do.

Although the government has the right to investigate the assets of former and current high-ranking officials/employees in public positions and find out the truth, the justification for the commission lies in the form in which it works and what kind of report it brings, says constitutional expert Bhimarjun Acharya. 'There is no restriction on such commissions to investigate the assets of people at any level holding public positions. But the integrity of the officials of the commission means a lot. Whether the method/process of investigation/research is scientific or not is also seen. Is the investigation biased? Is the government honest and impartial in implementing the report?’ Acharya adds, ‘The past experience is not very pleasant. If a commission is formed but not implemented, how acceptable is it to implement a report prepared by bringing a controversial person to the commission?’

What does the constitution say about positions subject to impeachment?

Article 101 of the Constitution of Nepal explains the process to be followed by impeachment to conduct any criminal investigation or inquiry against the President, Vice President, Chief Justice, Supreme Court judges, members of the Judicial Council, heads of constitutional bodies and officials. Clause 1 of the said article states that ‘one-fourth of the total number of members of the House of Representatives for the time being may submit a motion of impeachment against the President or Vice President on the grounds of serious violation of the Constitution and the law.’

There is a provision that if such a proposal is passed by at least a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of both houses of the Federal Parliament then they will be removed from office. Similarly, there is a provision that one-fourth of the total number of members currently in the House of Representatives can submit a proposal of impeachment against the Chief Justice, Supreme Court judges, members of the Judicial Council, heads or officials of constitutional bodies on the grounds of serious violation of the Constitution and the law, lack of efficiency or bad conduct, or failure to honestly perform their official duties or serious violation of the code of conduct.

• It is mentioned that if such a proposal is passed by at least a two-thirds majority of the total number of members currently in the House of Representatives then they will be removed from office. If the impeachment motion is passed by the parliament and the person is removed from office, there is a legal provision that does not prevent the President or Vice President, Chief Justice, Supreme Court judge, member of the Judicial Council, or head/officer of a constitutional body from committing any offense while in office. In addition, there is a provision that the Judicial Council can investigate/investigate the assets of subordinate employees and take action against those involved. In addition, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority and the Prevention of Corruption Act have directed the provision that the Authority can investigate and prosecute.

The Authority has not been clearly defined as having jurisdiction over the ‘policy decisions’ of judges, judicial services, military services, and the Council of Ministers. Recently, the Authority has taken some cases to court, considering some decisions made by the Council of Ministers as irregularities that went beyond ‘policy’. However, the Authority has taken some cases in cases of loss/damage to government/public property by abusing its position. However, the investigation of assets has not been able to bring high-ranking officials under the ambit.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority is also active with its constitutional status to investigate and prosecute illegal sources of wealth, but why is such a commission needed outside the permanent mechanism?

There are two government bodies that can investigate and prosecute illegal sources of wealth. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority is a mechanism with constitutional status and formed under a separate law. It operates under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act. However, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of its work due to political interference in its functioning.