(Corrects Nepal's 2009 ranking and score in the first question and its score range in the fourth question)
NEW DELHI (TrustLaw) – Transparency International Nepal's executive director Ashish Thapa speaks to TrustLaw about corruption and its impact on ordinary Nepalese. The country is still struggling with political instability after a 2006 peace deal ended a decade-long civil war against Maoist rebels.
Q: How would you describe the level of corruption in Nepal?
A: Corruption exists from top to bottom, from petty to grand, in all levels of government as well as in the political arena in Nepal. It’s endemic.
In 2009, Nepal was ranked around 143rd out of 180 countries. Our score was around 2.3 – where any score below three on a scale of zero to 10 is termed as “a place of rampant corruption” by Transparency International.
Q: What types of corruption are the most common?
A: Bribing of public servants, government ministers and officials is at the top of the list. There is also a lot of nepotism and favouritism with people giving their relatives and friends jobs in public service departments.
Embezzlement is also common. For example, there is a nexus of businessmen and tax authorities who conspire by taking less than actual tax stated and sharing what is left. Also, there is extortion by government officials who threaten you into a position where you have to pay money for a public service. Fraud and cross-border smuggling are common.
In the past, there have been cases involving ministers who have been found out to be taking commissions or bribes for favours. For example, in procurements, where all offices of the government are buying equipment, doing procurements of goods, the supplier usually pays some commission so he is chosen for the supply to the government.
There are three corruption-prone areas in Nepal. Number one is procurement where there is big-time corruption involving big volumes and big amounts.
Then there is corruption in public service delivery by the government, for example in departments which are giving licences, passports, nationality certificates, providing electricity, as well as in government schools and hospitals.
Then there is public revenue collection-related corruption. This involves the business sector mainly, since they have to pay income taxes, sales taxes, custom duties and all those to the government. So they often find ways to pay less by manipulating the tariff or declaring false incomes.
Q: How much money is being lost to corruption in Nepal?
A: There is no real indication of how much is being lost as most corruption does not get reported as we have a high tolerance to everything in Nepal given that we have been through a conflict and now a transition period which has been very unstable.
There is also corruption which appears to be legal but actually is not. For example, the procurement process may seem fair and transparent but it is likely that a supplier has paid a commission to have his bid accepted. It may appear according to the rules, but corrupt practices are going on but are not easily detected.
Q: What was Nepal’s score on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) during the war? Was it worse than now?
A: Our score has hovered between 2.3 and 2.8 since 2006 when we joined the CPI. There has not been any significant improvement or worsening in the CPI since the war ended.
Q: Have any efforts been made to tackle graft since the war ended?
A: Sine the war ended in 2006, we have been undergoing a process of weak democracy, a political transition and an unstable coalition government. All these three factors are known to contribute towards corruption.
Some new legislation has been framed like the Right To Information Act or RTI and we also got a Governance Act finalised. So there have been laws framed and endorsed by parliament but no new institutions have been set up and as always, the problem is in the implementation of the law.
Also, due to the war and the period before that, Nepal has become a country where impunity rules, which means we are very bad at maintaining rule of law. So even though we have good laws in place, because of this problem of the lack of rule of law, these acts are just there on paper.
In Nepal, impunity is common. People often know who is doing what, but when it comes to doing investigations and bringing the charges against senior officials or big-shot business men, the anti-corruption agencies hesitate. So influence and connections do count. In fact, in the last seven years, I doubt there have been any corruption cases involving high-profile people initiated by the anti-corruption agencies.
Seriously, I would not be able to give concrete examples of major efforts to fight graft since the end of the war. Whenever a new government comes in, the prime minister shows his political will to combat corruption which will be standard in his inauguration speech, but it doesn’t really get any follow-up after that.
Q: What are the main bodies who are responsible for tackling graft?
A: There are two agencies that deal with anti-graft activities. There is the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) which is authorised to investigate and prosecute corruption cases.
There is also a government body called the National Vigilance Centre where they do research and awareness-raising and it is kind of a preventive office, as their work is more on preventing corruption within the government bureaucracy.
So these are the two prime bodies and to support them we have a special court which looks after corruption cases. So these would be the three important organs which deal with anti-graft efforts in Nepal.
Q: How well does this special court function?
A: Because of the political situation we have been in for the last decade and after, most organs of the state are not functioning very well. The instability has affected all organs of the state, including the courts. So they are not functioning as desired – there are a lot of pending cases.
Q: Is it unfair to expect Nepal’s anti-corruption record to be better, given the instability this country has witnessed?
A: This is exactly what the government says when we ask them about anti-corruption efforts.
They always say, “The country demands peace and conflict resolution, so don’t bother us with this for some time until we resolve these important issues for common benefit of everyone in Nepal.”
But personally, I feel that corruption is a factor in sustaining peace which helps in mitigating conflict-related problems, so we should give equal importance to it when we are trying to settle other agendas of the country.
When we realise the state that we are in right now, one of the main reasons is corruption - so it should be taken as seriously as any other issue.
Q: Has Nepal signed and ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption?
A: Nepal was one of the first few nations to sign UNCAC, but we are yet to ratify. We do try and meet the parliamentarians and the speaker of the house to remind them that this convention needs to be ratified. But things move slowly.
Q: How important is it for Nepal to ratify the UNCAC?
A: If ratified, the enabling environment to combat graft would improve.
For example, the current anti-corruption agency cannot look into private-sector corruption. The law says that a public-service official has to be involved for the case to be prosecuted.
If UNCAC was ratified, this would mean that legislation would be amended in accordance and that would mean private sector officials would also be investigated.
Similarly, we would also have to draft more legislation like the Secure Transaction Act and set up an anti-money laundering body.
Q: How effective has the Right To Information Act been in bringing transparency?
A: Nepal passed the RTI in 2005, but there is awareness of the RTI only amongst lawyers, journalists and NGO activists. The awareness has not really trickled down to the people yet due to lack media campaigns to promote the RTI and its benefits.
There are now some programmes that have been started by NGOs and we now have a commission called the National Information Commission and I believe they are working on publicising the benefits of the RTI.
It will take more time to get the message out.
Q: Are any other international organisations or donors funding work related to anti-graft measures and good governance?
A: Before we got peace in Nepal, most donors were focusing on anti-corruption and governance issues and they were working with the NGOs primarily and also with the government and anti-corruption bodies.
But once the peace deal was made, they slowly started to focus more on conflict management, peace-building and all these issues. So donors like UNDP or Swiss, Norwegian or U.S. aid agencies have shifted their focus from governance issues to peace-building.
Q: What do you think needs to be done urgently to combat graft?
A: First, the government has to try deal with public grievances through a set mechanism. Right now, the public doesn’t have any set mechanism within the government to deal with their complaints. There has to be a framework for a working mechanism within the government bureaucracy which is easily accessed by the common people – where they can send in their complaints.
They should also keep all anti-corruption agencies independent and out of political influence. Let them do their work freely and independently. We see there is some kind of a political influence on the work of independent agencies.
Right now, the CIAA does not have any commissioners due to politics. This is because each party in the coalition government wants to nominate one commissioner each to the CIAA but they have not been able to decide and that is affecting the functioning of the CIAA.
If these issues can be addressed in the next five years, other anti-corruption efforts would follow. Issues like a code of conduct for ministers and a better parliamentary accountability system could then be implemented.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
