The disclosure of the property details of the officials appointed to the Asset Investigation Commission and the employees assigned to it in the Gazette is in conflict with the Information Act. Some employees have also expressed dissatisfaction with the information.

Two joint secretaries of the Justice/Legal Service and some deputy secretaries of the Administration who came in contact with Kantipur objected to the information published in the Gazette. It has been said that employees will be deployed in the secretariat of the Commission under the leadership of the Joint Secretary of the Justice/Legal Service. The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers has published a notice in the Nepal Gazette covering the formation of the Asset Investigation Commission, its functions and duties, and the employees assigned to it.

Point number 11 of the notice states that the officials of the Commission and the employees assigned to the Commission should submit their property details to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers within 7 days from the date of commencement of work. It also states – ‘The office will make such asset details public.’ A joint secretary of law said that even though the issue of submitting asset details is considered normal, the mandatory gazette notification to be made public is wrong.

The Prevention of Corruption Act states that every public servant must submit an updated statement of the assets held in his and his family’s names, including the source or evidence, within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year. Accordingly, the official said that every employee submits his asset details to the designated body or authority every year.

The provision regarding the submission of asset details is made in Section 50 of the Act and its various sub-sections. However, there is a provision in Section 50 (4) that the asset details submitted in this way will be kept confidential. ‘The asset details submitted pursuant to this section shall be kept confidential,’ the section states. Another joint secretary of law who came in contact with Kantipur said that the gazette notification is in conflict with the law, pointing to the same section of the Act.

The Commission has 38 employees, including 1 Joint Secretary, 5 Deputy Secretary, 1 Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), 1 National Investigation Director, 7 Branch Officers, 1 Police Inspector, 1 Accounts Officer, 11 Deputy Sub-Inspectors, 4 Computer Operators, 3 Light Vehicle Drivers and 3 Office Assistants. The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers will provide the required staff to the Commission. The government has not yet appointed all the employees to the Commission. The Commission's office is being managed at the Kesharmahal Library. The Commission's officials have started visiting there daily.

According to the Prevention of Corruption Act, the government has been keeping the property details of the employees who submit their property details to the taluk offices every year as per the law. The Act states that such property details should be provided to the concerned officer only if requested in the course of investigation and inquiry. The official commented that the property of millions of civil servants remains secret as per the provisions of the Act, but the provision to make the property of 38 employees assigned to the Assets Inquiry Commission public is not fair from the perspective of justice.

The law has not forced the Prime Minister and ministers to make their property details public. Due to the political positions elected by the people and election commitments, there is public pressure on them to make their property details public. Due to the lack of a binding legal provision to make their property details public, some governments in the past did not make their property details public. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) government, which won the election with the slogan of good governance, has made the property details of the Prime Minister and ministers public.

The property details of any office bearer, MP, or mayor appointed to a constitutional body are not made public. Accordingly, the official commented that the mandatory notification to make the property details of the chairperson or members of the Assets Inquiry Commission public is also against the provisions of the law. He mentioned that this issue should be left to their discretion. ‘As soon as the details of the ministers’ assets were made public, questions were raised about the entire cabinet, and one minister had to resign in the same controversy,’ he said. ‘When the assets of the commission officials are made public, there is a possibility that the commission will be dragged into controversy from the very beginning. As soon as the assets of an official are visible, it may be possible to create a controversy by making the commission a subject of controversy.’