Authority has the right to decide whether or not to prosecute the case. When the government says it will open and close the file, it is clear that it interfered with the authority, the authority should have opposed it.
In the recent public report of Transparency International, Nepal remained in the list of 'corrupt countries' with only 34 points out of 100. Meanwhile, the performance results of the ministers were also announced. It was seen that only 28.5 percent of the work was completed by the Prime Minister's Office. 12 ministers got less than 35 percent.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international organization that monitors money laundering and terrorism, has also placed Nepal on the "grey list".
Thus, in the competition between corruption and good governance, corruption won. The prime minister and the minister felt that the tax payer had to take care of the 'old white elephant'. Those who do not have capacity are called 'deadwood' in 'service law'. In such a situation, it is not suitable to hold the position. Absence of functionality is an event requiring a motion of no confidence. With 28 percent capacity of the Prime Minister's Office, it was seen that the Prime Minister could not lead the country.
The stability of the growth of corruption was maintained while the percentage of growth of the economy was to be maintained. Another two jewels like 'Highly Corrupt' and 'Grey List' were added to Nepal's Pagari. In Singapore, Norway, Denmark, the government would have resigned. Rulers were in prison. But it is said that he will run the government for three more years in Nepal.
It was not possible to work with small parties to form the government, 7 points agreement was made so that the big parties can come together. Looking at the performance score of the government, even if two major parties came together, only one prime minister could not work. Corrupting the constitution is corrupt. There is nothing left now. Therefore, it is suggested to make the 7-point amendment into 8 points by using the clause of 'removal of obstacles' so that two Prime Ministers will sit in the Singha Durbar together and create a post of 'Chief Prime Minister'. Make Sections 75 and 76 a laboratory once again. Khilraj Regmi has become the head of the executive and the head of the judiciary at the same time. Now, having two Prime Ministers in one position will not spoil anything. Let's experience it.
The government should be accountable to the parliament by 7 points, the UML government is made accountable to the Congress and the Congress government to the UML. Nepal has become a 'highly corrupt country' and is on the 'grey list' not because of the law. It is because the leaders consider politics as a lucrative business. The existing legal infrastructure was destroyed.
If the infrastructure is wrong and inadequate, the 'correct' infrastructure that is being done has been demolished. There was no thought of moving from the list of 'highly corrupt' to good governance. The Act giving immunity to the Council of Ministers in policy decisions was brought in conflict with Article 239(1) of the Constitution. The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority was made a recruitment center by making an unwritten agreement with the Constitutional Council to 'prosecute others besides us' in corruption. Section 238(1) set up other bodies under its control parallel to the authority.
The government is said to last until 2084. Stability, the ace of leaders became for comfort. It has been 16 years since the country became a republic. In the previous parliament, the government had a two-thirds majority. KP Oli was the Prime Minister but he could not work. Dissolved Parliament twice. Destructive rather than constructive actions took place. Even today, two-thirds of the government and he is the prime minister. The country is plagued by corruption. The Prime Minister says "I will not look at the face of a corrupt person" and "I will say whatever I have to say in Chitragupta's court".
You don't do the rooting of corruption. Two things could have been done on this land instead of Chitragupta's court. Dare to establish a commission of civil society, transparency, media, legal professionals and anti-corruption activists to open the source of assets of all public office holders since 2047. Secondly, do not stop investigating all the files of Giribandhu, Bhutanese refugees etc. After doing this, there is no need to reach Chitragupta's court.
Countries that are on the 'highly corrupt' and 'grey list' do not expect foreign investment. There is no industrial development because the work performance in leadership is not even 30 points out of 100. Much work could be done to make Nepal 'investment friendly'. But the Prime Minister could not do anything.
Learning from the slogan of the Prime Minister of India, 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas', the slogan of 'Prosperous Nepal and Happy Nepalis' was given. India is not a 'highly corrupt' country and its leaders are not accused of corruption scandals. "Extremely corrupt" Nepal is not prosperous, Nepalis are not happy. So let's stop the learned slogan. Let's control corruption. Let's run a campaign that says 'prison as much as corruption, strict corruption laws', instead of Mission 84. Let's stop the slogans of 'I don't see the face of corruption' and 'Chitragupta's court', which have reached the ears of Nepali people.
There are laws, investigative and prosecuting agencies and courts to control corruption. But the leaders were not honest. If corruption and greed for office is not to be done, the current unconstitutional law that contradicts with Article 239 (1) of the Constitution, ``Council of Ministers shall not be subject to corruption in policy decisions'' should be repealed and returned to the original state.
The misuse of the Constitutional Council should be stopped. It is the council that gives the authority a good commissioner. Because of the commissioners given by the council, Nepal can become 'highly corrupt' or become a 'corruption zero' country like Singapore. Therefore, the two parties should stop the work of appointing the council in Bhagbanda. Let's put an end to the notion that 'Panches have earned 30 years, now it's our turn' in the republic. Instead, let the government accept that it is because of us that Nepal has become a 'highly corrupt' country and is on the 'grey list'. The Constitution does not distinguish between Prime Minister and Pian in corruption. Both posts are public posts.
should not be confused with 'policy decisions'. How can a person who cannot understand policy decisions lead? Part 4 of the Constitution should be understood. Part 4 has 6 words under the heading 'Directive Principles Policy and Responsibilities of the State'. All the provisions in Part 4 are policies implemented by the Government. It is done by the applicable government decision. All such decisions are considered policy decisions. The Council of Ministers is formed to implement policy decisions.
The Council of Ministers constitutes other ministries and offices in accordance with Article 82(1). All Ministries constituted under Article 82(1) are offices of the Executive and every function they perform are policy/administrative/executive functions. Not judicial or legislative.
Cabinet members who make policy decisions are 'persons holding public office' according to Article 239 (1). The Ministers together with the Prime Minister are collectively the Council of Ministers of Article 76(9). It also includes political persons who are formed in the same way at the provincial and local levels. The restrictive wording of Article 239(1) does not confer immunity and immunity from corruption on the Council of Ministers.
Since the law was amended so that the cabinet is not subject to the law on corruption, many corruptions such as Giribandhu, Bhutanese refugees, Gokarna resort, business donations of billions to the party have flourished. Provision was made to get immunity for corruption. If there is honesty, let's repeal the unconstitutional law that allows the cabinet to commit corruption. In this case, even if the ordinance itself is issued, there is support. Let the authors of the 7 points announce their resolve to strictly implement the principle and policy of the state to make Article 51(b)(4) 'corruption-free' and not to interfere with the authority.
Extreme misuse of the Constitutional Council is itself corruption. Constitutional Council is a new system in the world. 238(6) prescribes 5 qualifications for Commissioners, but the disqualification of Clause (c) is a mandatory qualification for a Commissioner. Each prime minister made the Constitutional Council a platform to appoint his own people as commissioners. Corruption has flourished due to misuse of Article 284 and Nepal has become 'highly corrupt' and has been included in the 'grey list'. It was arranged that the heads of all the three organs of the state and the leaders of the opposition parties will be present in the council.
Its purpose is to make the person commissioner under clause (c) of section 238(6) in the authority. Clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) are minimum general and ritual qualifications. Clause (c) mentions experienced and reputed persons in the fields of accounting, revenue, engineering, law and development. The five areas mentioned are the functions of the Government constituted under Articles 82(1) and 76(9). These are the institutions and offices where corruption occurs. A bona fide Prime Minister seeks the qualification under clause (c). A selfish prime minister does not see (c). Only the other 4 volumes are viewed. This is also the reason why Nepal has become 'highly corrupt'.
Commissioners are as independent as judges of the Supreme Court due to the fixed age of retirement, salary and facility charges on the reserve fund and dismissal from office by impeachment proposal, but the leaders opened and closed corruption files by interfering and putting pressure on the independence of the authority. The authority has the right to decide whether or not to prosecute the case. When the government keeps saying that it will open and close the file, it is clear that it has interfered with the authority. It should have been opposed by the authorities.
The council should have constituted a 'search committee' of impartial persons from the civil society to select a commissioner with the qualifications and experience of clause (c) of Article 238 (g) and make the person selected by it a commissioner. The basis and reason for the selection should be in writing. Clause (c) should not have been excluded. The council is similar to the 6-member collegium formed by the Supreme Court in India that elects judges. It developed a 'Participatory Consultative Process' for selecting qualified candidates.
said that if there is not one vote, it should be done according to the majority. Even in our constitutional council, the commissioner had to be selected after a comprehensive discussion process among 6 members. But the chit was taken out of the pocket. Let us now hope that Clause (c) will be considered by the new Chief Justice. Authority to control corruption is 'only one'. Since 'only one' is written in the constitution, another body cannot be formed in parallel. In the beginning of Article 238
(1) it is mentioned that there will be 'one' authority. At the very beginning of Article 239(1), it is mentioned that the authority will investigate or cause to be investigated by the person holding a public office by corruption. The government created several other agencies in parallel to deal with other crimes of a corruption nature. Isn't it like forming another parallel Supreme Court?
Article 238(1) with the restrictive phrase of 239(1) has been misused for its own sake by not construing the restrictive phrase in 239(1). As Article 238(1) states that there shall be 'one' authority, separate parallel bodies of separate existence should not have been formed by enacting the Act. Multiple parallel agencies led to a shift in accountability and confusion, with no one taking responsibility. 238 (1) and Article 239 (1) are to be interpreted in a harmonious and coordinated manner, the intention of the constitution is to provide the authority with the necessary resources and manpower to form various 'cells' such as revenue leakage, asset laundering within it. But today there is an 'absurd interpretation' of the restrictive phrase. Let's improve it.
The government says that it opens various corruption files from time to time. Why, how, where did the file of the crime that should be in the authority reach the government? The government had to answer this. Authority also had to speak. His silence sent the message that the commissioners were gracious to the council members. The Supreme Court of India said to the CBI, "You are not a scumbag and a snitch who follows the orders of the government, you do not follow the orders of the government."
should be the same with us. The authority has to decide whether or not to prosecute the case based on the evidence. It seems that the threat of opening the government file is keeping the authority under government control. Finally, the country's status as 'highly corrupt' and on the 'grey list' caused concern among the leadership. Follow the tips to make the wrong right.
