Spread the love

By Our Reporter

As Nepal approaches the House of Representatives election on March 5, 2026, one pattern stands out sharply: several candidates with serious criminal allegations are in the race. From established parties to newer political outfits, individuals facing corruption charges, money laundering cases, and even murder convictions have filed nominations. CPN co-chair Madhav Kumar Nepal is contesting despite a high-profile corruption case. Rastriya Swatantra Party chair Rabi Lamichhane is running while facing allegations of cooperative fraud and money laundering. Resham Chaudhary, convicted in a triple-level court murder case, has also submitted his candidacy after receiving a presidential pardon. Even Nepali Congress leaders, previously suspended over corruption or land-grab cases, are back in the fray with cases still pending.

Under Nepal’s current election law, people with ongoing criminal cases can run for office, though they cannot take their parliamentary seat until their cases are resolved. This creates a tricky situation: candidates with unresolved legal issues can campaign, win votes, and influence public opinion, yet cannot formally serve if elected. For voters, this means navigating promises and local influence against a backdrop of legal uncertainty. It also raises uncomfortable questions about fairness and the health of the democratic process.

This is not a sudden development. It reflects deeper flaws in governance and legal frameworks. Political parties often prioritize winning and local clout over candidates’ clean records, sometimes fielding those with legal baggage precisely because they hold influence. Over time, this has normalized the presence of controversial figures in elections, weakening the credibility of parties that champion good governance and accountability. The law, by allowing candidacy amid pending cases, unintentionally enables this trend. Voters are left in a bind: they can reject candidates with criminal histories, but choices are limited when these figures dominate party politics and resources.

The impact on democracy is serious. Candidates under legal scrutiny undermine public trust, erode confidence in governance, and lower the ethical bar for elected officials. Repeated cases risk making criminality a tolerated part of politics, turning accountability into a negotiable concept and reducing elections to a transactional exercise rather than a principled choice. It also signals institutional weakness, as the law allows individuals under investigation to shape national policy before outcomes are settled in court.

Addressing this requires both legal reform and political responsibility. Election laws should bar individuals facing serious charges for corruption, organized crime, or violent offenses—from contesting until their cases are fully resolved. Political parties must enforce internal checks to avoid promoting candidates under legal scrutiny. Public awareness campaigns can help voters understand candidates’ legal histories, ensuring electoral decisions reflect both competence and integrity.

Allowing candidates with tainted records to run is more than a loophole—it is a test of Nepal’s democracy. Without reform, it risks normalizing opportunism and undermining the credibility of representative institutions. Voters, informed and vigilant, are the ultimate safeguard, but the system itself must evolve to make running for office about public service, not legal impunity.