The Constitution of Nepal has assigned the first and foremost responsibility of corruption control to the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority. However, in the widebody aircraft procurement case, the authority's action style has brought this organization to court.

The latest comment of the special court has raised this question even more - when the authority gives immunity to its own head in a serious case of corruption, then how relevant is the saying that the protector is the eater? The widebody aircraft procurement case is one of the biggest and most talked about corruption scandals in the history of Nepal. In this case, the special court ruled that there was a financial loss of 1 billion 47 crore rupees to the nation. The then tourism minister, secretary, employees and directors of private companies are also accused in this case. But, surprisingly, Premkumar Rai, the then commissioner and current chief commissioner of the Authority, who played a decisive role in the initial decision and approval of the procurement process, has been kept out of the scope of the case. 

The special court has judged this selective prosecution to be contrary to the principle of equal justice and has raised a tough question - Why is Rai exempted? The basic principle of justice is that all are equal before the law. However, this behavior of the authority has raised a serious question whether the powerful and influential can be brought under the umbrella of the law. Errors such as vague and misleading conditions in the widebody procurement process, violation of the Public Procurement Act and regulations and no provision for price adjustment are clear indications of corruption. 

Protecting the person who led and approved such a process from prosecution has not only affected the impartiality of the authority, but also its moral and constitutional basis. The special court has pointed out this very thing - selective prosecution "weakens faith in justice." This case has created a serious crisis on the institutional credibility of the authority. When a constitutional body grants immunity to its own head without reason and evidence, it is considered to be condoning institutional corruption.

This is not only limited to the purchase of widebody aircraft, it is a tragic situation like the wings of justice being clipped. The responsibility of the head of a constitutional body like the authority is not only to protect the position, but to protect the public trust and the rule of law. However, when the Chief Commissioner himself falls under the shadow of immunity in such cases, the institution loses its moral and legal basis to investigate others. The special court has clearly exposed this matter - to punish some involved in the same process and to acquit others is a danger of creating double standards in the justice system.