SC case on policy corruption draws attention in bill discussions

Kathmandu, October 28 — While discussions are ongoing in the Parliament's State Affairs and Good Governance Committee regarding the proposed anti-corruption bill, attention has been drawn to the fact that a case concerning policy corruption is pending before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court.

Advocate Raju Chapagain has alerted Speaker Devaraj Ghimire, National Assembly Chairman Narayan Dahal, Chief Commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Prem Rai, and Committee Chair Ramhari Khatiwada.

The petition states, "A case has been filed seeking to declare the provision used in Section 49 (b) of the CIAA Act, which allows corrupt decisions to be excluded from the scope of investigation under the guise of policy decisions, as unconstitutional." It further mentions that discussions are taking place in the committee regarding the CIAA (Third Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by the National Assembly and is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. The issue is scheduled for hearing on January 16, 2025, following a hearing on November 25, 2022.

The petition claims that the phrase used in Section 4 (b) of the CIAA Act, 2048—"...or any policy decision collectively made by the Council of Ministers or any of its committees..."—contradicts Article 239(1) of the Constitution, necessitating its invalidation.

The State Affairs Committee has also discussed the CIAA Bill today. The term "improper action" has been removed from the CIAA's jurisdiction, and since no legal arrangements have been made by the opposition that would fall under the jurisdiction of other appropriate bodies or mechanisms, a request has been made to the court for immediate legal provisions to address the created legal vacuum.

It has been stated in the petition that past practices have misused the classification of Council of Ministers' decisions into policy and non-policy categories, providing immunity to certain decisions under the guise of policy decisions, which has now extended to the provinces in the current bill.

Chapagai’s petition emphasizes that any provision that grants immunity from investigation and prosecution for abuse of authority under the name of policy decisions is neither justifiable nor constitutional. It calls for the committee to study the pending petition in the constitutional bench and to amend the bill accordingly.

The petition warns that the exceptional provision in Section 4 (b) concerning the Federal Council of Ministers must be completely repealed; otherwise, such retroactive amendments from Parliament will become subject to judicial challenges. The petition urges the committee to make prudent decisions in line with the principles of good governance.