Summary: Under the leadership of Prime Minister Balendra Shah, the government has established a five-member Asset Investigation Commission chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari. The commission is mandated to investigate the assets of high-ranking politicians and officials who have held public office since 1991 (2048 BS). The commission has the authority to collect and analyze data, submit reports to the government, and recommend further investigations.
On April 16, Kathmandu – Following the formation of the government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, the first cabinet meeting announced the creation of an Asset Investigation Committee under the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers’ office. Within three weeks, the government decided to form a five-member Asset Investigation Commission chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari. The commission also includes two former judges of the Appellate Court, one former Deputy Inspector General of Nepal Police, and one Chartered Accountant. Although the government has not officially announced the commission’s full mandate, previous guidelines specify that it will investigate assets of senior politicians and officials from 2048 BS onward. The investigation will occur in two phases: from 2062/063 BS to the present and from 2048 BS up to that period.
What is Asset Investigation? How Does the Commission Work and What Recommendations Can It Make? Journalist Krishna Gyawali prepared an insightful Q&A on this topic: The Asset Investigation Commission, also known as a Fact-Finding Commission, is established to investigate complex matters where regular state mechanisms face challenges. These commissions are formed under the 1969 (2026 BS) Asset Investigation Commission Act. Possessing judicial authority similar to courts, such commissions can summon individuals, record statements, and demand evidence. They also have the power to arrest or fine those obstructing investigations. The commission collects and analyzes data, then submits findings to the government and may recommend further inquiry. The commission is led by a chief justice-level member, includes experts from relevant fields, and all officials swear an oath of confidentiality. The government cooperates with the commission’s work.
Differences Between General Fact-Finding Commissions and Asset Investigation Commissions In Nepal, investigative commissions are commonly formed in response to criminal incidents or human rights violations. However, in 2001 (2058 BS), a special Asset Investigation Commission chaired by Supreme Court Justice Bhairav Prasad Lamsal was formed specifically to examine the assets of public officials. Unlike other commissions that investigate criminal conduct, the Asset Investigation Commission focuses on scrutinizing public officials’ properties.
The Connection Between Political Change and Asset Investigation It is a longstanding practice to investigate the assets of former leaders after political transitions, particularly targeting wealth accumulated through misuse of public power. Despite demands to investigate Panchayat-era leaders’ assets since 1989 (2046 BS), concrete implementation was lacking. The Lamsal Commission of 2001 represents such efforts. Although the Maoist peace process included provisions for investigating corruption and illicit assets, enforcement was limited. Recently, political developments have revived interest in asset investigations.
How Is Asset Investigation Conducted? The commission requires senior public officials to submit detailed asset declarations, comparing declared income with acquired assets to detect unnatural wealth accumulation. Officials holding public office since 2001 (2058 BS) must submit asset details; the commission uses this information to analyze discrepancies. Suspicious cases may lead to witness statements. The Constitution upholds citizens’ right to own property legally, but public officials must only acquire assets through legitimate means. The commission evaluates the validity of assets primarily by comparing them to declared lawful income and recommends further investigation if irregularities appear.
Criteria for Asset Evaluation Since the Lamsal Commission in 2001, evaluation standards have been refined based on the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Supreme Court rulings, and judicial principles. A baseline estimate assumes that public officials can save up to 70% of their salary and allowances. Assets exceeding this threshold are considered suspicious. Under the Corruption Control Act 2002 (2059 BS), illicit accumulation of assets carries penalties including imprisonment from one to three years and fines, with possible additional penalties and asset confiscation. The commission’s mandate extends even to judges and military officers.
Implementation of the Commission’s Reports Other agencies use the commission’s collected facts and evidence to initiate investigations and take legal action; the report alone does not trigger cases. Senior lawyer Rajup Prasad Chapagai explains that the commission itself cannot file cases but recommends further investigation when suspicions arise.
Rationale for Establishing a Powerful Commission Following political interference that hindered normal agencies’ effectiveness, the government formed this special commission. Senior lawyer Harihar Dahal notes the commission’s role focuses on data collection and analysis; it does not prosecute cases. Investigations proceed based on the commission’s recommendations.
Significance of the Lamsal Commission Report Established in 2001 and led by Bhairav Lamsal, this commission uncovered illegal wealth of key politicians and administrators, but political opposition limited its impact at the time.
Who Falls Under the Investigation Scope? The first phase includes former prime ministers, senior officials, and members of constitutional bodies. Some ex-politicians among them are already linked to economic controversies.
Challenges and Ease of Asset Investigation Around 2001/02, amassing wealth while holding public office became a prevalent phenomenon in Nepal, often viewed as a symbol of social prestige. Recently, corruption and hiding assets abroad have intensified. Agencies like the CIAA have pursued numerous corruption and asset-related cases, filing various financial crime charges. Journalist Haribahadur Thapa suggests the new commission may facilitate some aspects but faces significant challenges given the increasingly sophisticated methods used to conceal assets.
