By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

Vladimir Lenin once said, "There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen." The ongoing political developments in the country appear to resonate with these words. At a point where it seems like high-voltage scam corruption has become a common occurrence, we as citizens and well-wishers need to assess why we are unable to curb corruption despite having all legal apparatus in place.

Nepalese have been witnessing back-to-back corruption cases, compelling them to believe that high-voltage scams and corruption are nothing unusual. While the visit visa corruption case involving Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak is still fresh as morning dew, another case of corruption related to Patanjali land involving former PM Nepal has rocked the nation. However, let's examine whether the former prime minister is an offender or if he has fallen to the sinister agenda of his ex-friend and incumbent PM KP Oli.

Oli and Nepal were bedfellows after they joined politics. Both had remained comrades in hands for long. They were committed to fighting the oppressive forces with a vision to establish a society which is governed by the people. However, after walking hand in hand for years, their relationship turned sour following some indifferences over party leadership. When their relationship reached a tipping point, Nepal finally decided to divorce UML, citing Oli’s high-handedness, and formed a new party – the Unified Socialist – under his leadership. This was a huge setback for Oli, and he was often venting his ire, saying that Nepal split the UML. However, the split did not surprise anyone, as it has been a common practice in the country to split the party over power sharing. This was just yet another split for their personal gains.

Nepal began his political career at the age of 13 and joined the communist party in 1969 AD. In 1971, he came to Kathmandu with an objective to expand his party activities and eventually rose to the country’s top executive post in 2009. Whether serving as the prime minister or general secretary of UML, he constantly upheld the belief that no one should tolerate corruption. Surprisingly, he has been charged with corruption questioning his integrity.

It is generally believed that Oli was seeking an opportunity to teach Nepal a lesson that would break him from within. It is also believed that Nepal was repenting over his decision, as his political career was at high risk. While he was attempting to bridge the difference, the constitutional anti-graft body – The Commission for Investigation on Abuse of Authority (CIAA) – lodged a corruption case against him for allowing the purchase and sale of land beyond the legal ceiling through his cabinet. Following the corruption charge, Nepal has lost his parliamentary position.

The CIAA has primarily accused Nepal of facilitating Patanjali Yogpeeth and Ayurveda Company Nepal to purchase land beyond the legal ceiling in Nasiksthan Sanga, Mahendrajyoti, for company operation. And then giving cabinet approval to sell the land which, under the Land Act, should have been confiscated and maintained as government or public property, two months after allowing the purchase.

Ever since we restored democracy, this has been the first time that CIAA has lodged a corruption case against the former prime minister. Everyone welcomed the move, saying this has set a new precedent, marking the beginning of a new and vibrant CIAA. But the supporters and party insiders of Unified Socialist were quick to allege that the constitutional anti-graft body acted against Nepal at the behest of PM Oli. Rajendra Pandey, vice chair of the Unified Socialist, even claimed that no prime minister would be spared if cabinet decisions, which he describes as policy decisions, were subjected to corruption charges.

Just to recall, in its annual report, the anti-graft body asked the government to define policy decisions and draw a clear line between policy decisions and administrative decisions made through cabinet meetings. But the policy decisions are yet to be defined legally. This issue is a significant concern. But this is seldom discussed with high emphasis.  

Post-corruption charges, Nepal accused Oli of using corruption charges against him for political revenge. While speaking at the opening event of the party’s Madhesh province contact committee in Kathmandu, he said that Oli brought up the Patanjali land case to attack him out of personal hatred and political rivalry. Given our filthy politics and morally corrupt political leaders, the remarks of the former prime minister cannot be ruled out altogether.

While the opposition leaders criticise the decision, the experts have been welcoming it, saying the CIAA has finally dared it.  The anti-corruption campaigners have been encouraged by the commission’s move, saying that the anti-graft body has finally woken up from slumber. However, they fear that the charge could be just limited to Madhav Kumar Nepal alone. To put it simply, it should not be selective.

Now, the onus lies on CIAA to silence its critics by bringing every corrupt person – be it a former head of the government or office bearers of public offices – to book. The CIAA also has a huge responsibility to tell its critics that the CIAA does not dance to the tune of executives but works independently and impartially. We really appreciate the bold move on the part of the CIAA filing the corruption charges against the former prime minister. But we also hope that it has not taken this step at the behest of someone else. Only time will tell whether CIAA will follow the practice or turn a blind eye to such cases of corruption in the future.