Image Source, RSS
Only 600 individuals have submitted asset declarations to the government-formed Asset Investigation Commission to date.
As the deadline for submitting asset declarations within one month issued by the commission approaches, a surge of former employees and officials is seen at government offices and banks.
The commission has instructed politicians and senior officials who have held public office since 2005/06 (2062/63 BS) to submit their asset declarations. By Thursday, around 600 individuals had submitted their details, and about 400 complaints were registered, according to commission spokesperson Ganesh KC.
The commission directed that within a month, individuals including prime ministers, ministers, members of parliament, local government chiefs and deputies, government-appointed officials, constitutional body members, and high-ranking employees must submit asset reports.
The one-year term of the commission allows submissions until the end of the Nepali month Jestha.
Spokesperson KC estimated that approximately 35,000 individuals, including former employees and those in political positions, fall under the scope of this investigation.
According to Sudan Khwakhali Shrestha, information officer at the Civil Service Records Office in Lalitpur, nearly 26,000 employees at the level of undersecretary and above are subject to the investigation.
“Currently, approximately 13,000 serving employees, a similar number of retired employees, and those married to government employees bring the total to about 30,000 who must also submit salary records,” Shrestha explained.
Due to heavy demand in departments, the office has initiated a ‘faceless’ online service. “We are processing submissions online based on employee identification numbers. Five employees are providing this service even on their leave days,” she added.
Preparation to Extend Deadline
Image Source, PMO
Since collecting old documents takes time, there are discussions about extending the deadline at the commission.
“Positive suggestions to allow more time have been made. The commission will discuss and decide on this,” KC said.
“There is heavy pressure at banks, police archives, civil service archives, and police offices where people retrieve old documents. We have seen this causing difficulties,” he added. KC is a retired Deputy Inspector General of Nepal Police.
On Wednesday, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli expressed his view against submitting asset records to the commission, referencing the arson incident at leaders’ homes on September 10 (Bhadra 24).
However, KC stated the commission currently has no plan to manage such a scenario.
According to the commission, even if documents proving asset origins are destroyed, it will not consider this as “otherwise.”
Why the Commission Requested Social Media Information?
The commission requires completion of a 12-page form for asset details, including providing identification of social media accounts such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and TikTok.
Regarding the request for social media data, spokesperson KC said, “Nowadays, various personal information can be found on social media. Social media is one of the tools that can aid investigations, so it has been included.”
Previously, during the September movement, some political figures and their descendants were criticized for displaying extravagance on social media.
“This Is a Drama”
Image Source, PMO
Chitra Bahadur KC, who briefly served as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Poverty Alleviation, said that investigations should begin based on asset declarations submitted to government bodies by public officials.
“I submitted asset declarations four times when I was an MP, and also during my time as Deputy Prime Minister and chair of the Accounts Committee,” he stated.
“Most importantly, the public should have the right to know how the individual earned before entering power.”
He expressed skepticism regarding implementation of this commission’s report, citing that the Bhairab Prasad Lamichhane commission’s report was not released and no action was taken.
“This is all a drama. Commissions were formed before, dramas were acted out, and the hiding and showing of assets was just a charade. If someone submits, it should be proven if something illegal was there, but that is not happening through investigations,” he said.
“The Bhairab Lamichhane report should have been implemented with legal action.”
Former Secretary Dwarikanath Dhungel also questioned the formation of a new commission due to non-implementation of the Lamichhane commission report.
“It is said that the Lamichhane commission’s report was submitted to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, but why was it not implemented?” Dhungel asked.
“Is it correct to investigate only currently serving MPs and ministers and not the previous ones? Not saying all previous are at fault.”
