The problem of the country is corruption. If corruption is controlled, then there is good governance. If there is good governance, development will accelerate. Most of the problems are solved once the development takes off. The seeds of corruption were planted in the Panchayat. Democracy was done. Branches are spreading across the Republic. It is the Council of Ministers to control corruption.

The Council of Ministers is a group of 25 ministers with executive powers. The government itself has become the 'epicenter' of corruption. The society demands that the decision of the Council of Ministers should be investigated by the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority. But the government does not amend the Act. 

On 23rd of January in Kantipur Daily, the news headlined 'Oli and Deuba's disagreement on the provision of authority to investigate policy decisions' was published on the front page. There are ministers in the government who are involved in many scandals like Giribandhu Tea Estate, fake Bhutanese refugees and who say that electricity tariff should not be collected from big businessmen. Some are being investigated, they have not been acquitted.

There is a need for the minister to not have to pay the bank loan, mortgage cannot be auctioned. Soon that will happen. If the government stays like this, the Nepali people will not think it strange if an ordinance is issued with a 35-day limit on corruption, only a fine for punishment, and immunity for 275 MPs. The fact that the amendment bill of 2076 will last until 2081 is a sign of this. During the Panchayat era, there was a life limit on corruption and the Cabinet had no immunity in policy decisions. It seems that this government was not formed to control corruption and give good governance. 

Sri Lanka's recently elected president said the government's main goal is to 'control corruption'. Recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that "corruption should be rooted out of China". Our government ministers are afraid to even utter the word 'corruption'. Corruption has brought the republic into disrepute. If the parents are immoral, uneducated, make the house an arena for gambling and drug addiction, if they do not care about their children's education, the house will deteriorate. That is what happened in the country today. It is sad to see that the democratic party Congress is also a party to the UML-led government.

Corruption is also the cause of migration of young people abroad. Why go abroad? If you ask, 'What's the point of living in a country with a corrupt leader?' The protest against the Prime Minister in New York and the slogan 'Leave the country' in Nepal are also due to corruption. At the time of writing this article, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resigned not only as prime minister but as party leader due to unpopularity. He was not accused of any scandal. The problem is not to eliminate corruption, but to eliminate corrupt leaders. Once the corrupt leader is eliminated, corruption is automatically eliminated. 

Our system is a parliamentary system that is accountable to the people through Parliament. We elected 275 well-educated parliamentarians to make laws and control the government so that they would be accountable. Among them, 25 people were chosen as better to run the government. But not in discipline, but in governance, not in conduct, in corrupt conduct, and not good, chosen to choose our people. We will choose to do politics for the "rights" of Singha Durbar and for the deluxe stay of Baluwatar. 

In 2046, there was a movement for democracy. Around the same time, the Soviet Union and 7 countries of Eastern Europe also had 'anti-communist' movements. A second movement took place in Nepal in 062-63, which was not necessary. Some happened at the whim of the group. The system changed from the second movement, the constitution changed but the leader did not change. The old leaders came to the new politics, that's why it got worse. The Soviet Union and other countries in Eastern Europe, except Poland, threw away their constitutions, systems and leaders. The old leader did not dare to enter politics. Roots of corruption were uprooted.

The Soviet Union collapsed and became 15 independent nations. Boris Yeltsin became leader. Russia became unstable. In 2001, Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor. Putin suppressed democracy. But not only political stability, but also economic development. Today, more than 30,000 "Sangsan" of Western countries have also developed.

7 other Eastern European countries that got rid of communism after gaining democracy have also become members of the European Union by stabilizing their development. The main reason for the leap of stability, good governance and development in that country is because of throwing away the old leaders. It was a mistake for us not to throw out the old leaders as well as the system and the constitution.

Article 51(b)(4) of the constitution mentions "to ensure equal and easy access of the people to the services provided by the state by making the public administration clean, competent, fair, transparent, corruption-free, accountable and participatory and ensuring good governance". Since the government is the 'epicenter of corruption', he will not score a suicide goal. The government does not believe in increasing the extent of corruption and bringing the policy decisions of the Council of Ministers under the authority of the authority. People who are honest and understand the investigation are afraid to make commissioners in authority.

Article 67(c) of the Panchayat-era Constitution, Commission for the Prevention of Abuse of Authority was the gift of Raja Birendra. He may have wanted to maintain the Panchayat. He wanted to live on the constitution. Political parties may have wanted to continue the ban. They did not want to give full democracy. But he was not corrupt. He wanted to make Nepal a corruption-free peace zone. If he had not given the Authority Abuse Prevention Commission, there would not have been an Authority Abuse Investigation Commission today.

The only bad thing was that the Commission for the Prevention of Abuse of Authority was given the 'authority to look into the matter'. The end of unfairness is the beginning of corruption. In the Redressal Commission, it was arranged that only if the unfair action exceeded its limit and entered the circle of corruption, it would be prosecuted and punished. Democracy was restored. The authority was abused to such an extent that no qualified and experienced person was chosen to be the Commissioner. A recruitment center was created in the same way that vets who were able to donate were appointed as doctors in Veer Hospital. Even if there is no corruption, just unfair actions, they are prosecuted as corrupt. The constitution was not to blame. The blame was on the appointer. But he did not see his fault. Remove the wrongdoing.

Corruption control is done by strong laws and strong authorities. Corruption increases with lax laws and increased government economic activity. Laws should be revised and amended. The government does not want to amend the corruption laws. There is a rush to issue an ordinance to dissolve the party. If the government was honest, it could have amended the long term of the Panchayat Redressal Commission and the policy decisions of the Council of Ministers to come under the jurisdiction of the Inquiry Commission.

British colonial laws are still in force in India today. If there is no objection to the implementation of colonial laws, then why object to the implementation of panchayat laws on corruption? The panchayat system was undemocratic. But the Panchayat Prime Ministers were more honest and 'delivered' to the people than the Republic Prime Ministers. In relation to the limitation period, the law of the Panchayat era did not write 'so far' or 'limitation will not apply'. Rule 11 (2) of the Redressal Commission Regulations 2030 states that 'the Commission for the Prevention of Abuse of Authority shall have the right to investigate and take action against any person who has been a person of authority in such a position at any time and has done or has done while in that position and also against the person involved in such abuse'. If the intention is good, the same system could be maintained. 

It can be said about immunity in the policy decisions of the Council of Ministers, even the head of state is not immune from corruption in a democracy. For a Prime Minister with executive powers to seek immunity means not understanding the rule of law. For the dignity of the office, the head of state is not prosecuted for corruption while in office, but it is recognized by the rule of law and constitutionalism to be prosecuted after removal from office or impeachment. If it is a republic, the prime minister with executive powers should not be immune. Is the prime minister who seeks freedom from another planet other than Earth? In a democracy, there is no one law for the prime minister and ministers and another law for the people. Equality is the heart of democracy. In the eyes of the constitution, a person who seeks immunity from corruption is considered a "politically rude natwarlal". Such a person cannot become the Prime Minister of Nepal. 

If the 'Founding Fathers' of the Constitution wanted to give immunity to the Council of Ministers in corruption, they should have given it from the Constitution itself. What is not given by the constitution cannot be given by law. KP Sharma Oli and Sher Bahadur Deuba, who alternately made each other the Prime Minister, had to look at Article 87 of the Panchayat Constitution and Article 31 of the 2047 Constitution. In both the articles, the king was placed above the law by writing that "no question shall be raised in any court in relation to any work done by Mr. 5". If immunity was sought, the provision should have been included in the constitution. The prime minister of the republic should not become a king by seeking immunity.

Due to the separation of powers and constitutional supremacy, policy decisions are the 'domain' of the government according to Article 75, so not only the authority, but also the Supreme Court cannot look at the justification. But if a policy decision has been made through corruption, it can be investigated according to Article 239(1) of the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission. No law can be made inconsistent with this Article. is unconstitutional. Let's say the government made a policy decision to build a big airport. If there is corruption in a decision, the authority can investigate. If there is no corruption, the file should be closed. The authority gets to investigate the second airport where corruption occurred. This is what Article 239 says. 

Reasons, reasons, needs, etc. for building an airport are matters that fall under the government 'domain' of Article 75(1). In such a case, the authority can not only investigate but also ask about the merits, it can only investigate corruption. The government had to be guided by Rule 14 of the Panchayat Redressal Commission Rules. In

14, in the section on "Commission not having authority", there was a clear provision that "The Authority Abuse Investigation Commission will not have the authority to assess and investigate and take action within the justification that the policy decision made by the official who has the right to make policy decision has not reached wisdom". If corruption is to be avoided, it should be amended and included in the current Act, similar to the provisions of the Panchayat Redressal Commission Regulation 14.