Impunity Under Scanner

The Balen Shah government has formed a high-level Asset Investigation Commission to examine the wealth of political leaders and senior bureaucrats from 2006 to the current fiscal year 2025/26. That timeline begins with the post–People’s Movement transition, when the country entered a new political era—and, incidentally, when public suspicion over the sudden accumulation of wealth among officials began to grow louder. The five-member commission is led by former Supreme Court justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari. It includes former justices Chandi Raj Dhakal and Purushottam Parajuli, former Deputy Inspector General Ganesh KC, and chartered accountant Prakash Lamsal. The Cabinet approved the body on Wednesday, following through on a commitment made shortly after the current government took office. The idea also stems from the government’s 100-point reform plan, where asset investigation was listed as a priority. However, forming a commission is the easy—almost ceremonial—step. Nepal has a long history of announcing probes that generate headlines, only to quietly disappear into files that gather dust. This commission risks the same fate if it turns into a selective exercise or a political tool aimed at targeting rivals while protecting allies. That would not just weaken the process; it would deepen public distrust.

To make this effort meaningful, fairness must be non-negotiable. The commission should examine the wealth of all major political actors and bureaucratic ranks without bias. If one group is investigated more aggressively than another, the entire exercise will appear performative rather than reformist. People have seen enough of that already. The inclusion of both political leaders and bureaucrats is a strong starting point. Corruption, after all, rarely operates in isolation. It thrives through networks where decisions, approvals and benefits are interconnected. Focusing on only one side would miss the bigger picture. At the same time, leaving out security agencies would be a convenient blind spot. Individuals within these institutions also wield significant power and control resources. If accountability is the goal, they cannot remain outside scrutiny. This move deserves recognition. Still, the government faces a difficult reality. It has already come under criticism after disclosing the wealth of current cabinet members, with many questioning the scale and sources of those assets. That context makes this commission both necessary and risky—necessary because public doubt is high, and risky because any inconsistency or perceived bias will quickly backfire.

To prevent this from becoming another forgotten initiative, the government must ensure a few fundamentals. The commission should have full access to financial records and the legal authority to verify declarations. Its findings must be made public in a clear and timely manner, and its recommendations should lead to concrete action. Most importantly, the process must be shielded from political interference—something easier said than done in Nepal. Corruption in Nepal is also tied to systems that allow unexplained wealth to accumulate without consequence. This commission offers an opportunity to end years of impunity in wealth accumulation. Its success will depend less on its formation and more on how seriously the government follows through on its findings and recommendations. Effective action based on the commission’s work can strengthen governance and accountability, as promised by the current administration. At the same time, institutionalising asset investigation through a dedicated commission signals an attempt to move away from ad hoc measures towards a system that functions with continuity and credibility. Nepal needs more such efforts, as governance should not depend on who happens to be in office at any given moment.