If the declared details remain unchallenged, even if they are inaccurate, the public access system itself will prove meaningless. Nepal's corruption crisis is a very serious and complex problem, which demands much more than mere self-declaration or general commitment
In a country where corruption is rampant at all levels of the state structure, from the ward level to the highest level, the Federal Parliament, the Election Commission of Nepal has brought in a reform. After the upcoming elections to the House of Representatives and the National Assembly, the commission has proposed publicly disclosing the assets of elected members of parliament. Candidates will now have to submit a self-declaration form agreeing to this public disclosure. The self-declaration form must also confirm four conditions: 1) no outstanding fines, 2) not residing abroad, 3) not blacklisted, and 4) not under investigation for corruption.
The move seems progressive on paper. In theory, the asset declaration system introduces transparency by allowing public scrutiny of officials' assets, curbing illicit enrichment and enabling the detection of undisclosed benefits. When such mechanisms are strictly implemented, they have contributed to reducing corruption in countries like Singapore. But does this self-declaration really help reduce corruption in Nepal? But, in reality, this is only for show. Corruption is particularly rampant after the elections.
Effectiveness depends not only on declarations but also on verification, strict enforcement, and a system of strict penalties for violations. Such asset declarations in Nepal are often unverified, and there is no effective penalty for non-compliance or submission of false declarations.
The rise in corruption after the elections has become a clear reality. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index paints an unflattering picture: Nepal scored 34 out of 100 in 2024 (down from 35 in 2023), ranking around 107th out of 180 countries – firmly in the "highly corrupt" category. This stability or slight decline has persisted despite existing declaration requirements.
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal's main anti-corruption body, has reported a significant increase in corruption-related cases in recent years. In fiscal year 2080/81 (2023/24) alone, the commission filed 201 corruption cases against 1,545 individuals, more than double the previous year. The number of complaints registered with the commission during this period has also risen to over 26,000. This figure clearly indicates how deep and widespread the roots of corruption are in Nepal.
Especially with the decentralisation of power to the local levels after the implementation of federalism in 2074, these bodies have become new hotspots of corruption. Although local governments have been given budgets and powers, irregularities have flourished due to a lack of institutional will and monitoring. The high-level scams seen after the 2022 federal and provincial elections have made this trend even clearer.
Ministers, former prime ministers, and top leaders of major parties have been implicated in scams related to Bhutanese refugees, gold smuggling, and Lalita Niwas land. These scandals confirm that corruption is now a serious problem not only for low-level employees but also at the highest political levels. Interestingly, the leaders of the National Independent Party, which emerged with an anti-corruption agenda, are themselves embroiled in embezzlement charges.
Despite asset declarations, corruption has increased rather than decreased – it stems from some deep systemic weaknesses. Declarations are rarely independently audited; there is rarely a regular lifestyle check or monitoring of whether assets have increased unnaturally after assuming office. As a result, the declared details remain limited to paper.
Political interference has compounded the problem. The CIAA is often pressured by the powerful. Big leaders and influential people get away with it, while small employees are made scapegoats. This has unbalanced and weakened the fight against corruption.
The new public disclosure rules are certainly a welcome effort towards transparency. But if they do not include mandatory independent verification, stricter penalties for discrepancies between declared and actual assets, and provisions to protect whistleblowers, the rules risk becoming just another symbolic step. If the declared details remain unchallenged, even if they are inaccurate, the public access system itself will prove meaningless. Nepal's corruption crisis is a very serious and complex problem, which demands much more than mere self-declaration or general commitment. Concrete and bold steps are needed to control this crisis.
First, the elite involved in corruption must be severely prosecuted. Political leaders, high-ranking officials and businessmen who misuse public property must be brought to justice and punished. This alone can instill fear in others and discourage corruption.
Second, institutions such as the CIAA must be made stronger and more effective. These institutions must be adequately resourced, autonomous, and free from political interference.
Third, it is imperative to develop a culture of accountability in society. For this, education, public awareness, and a transparent governance system must be encouraged. But the most important element for all of this is political will. Leaders must rise above personal or party interests and prioritise national interests.
Unless such a will is in place, the unnatural increase in the wealth of leaders will continue after elections. This trend will continue to erode people's trust in the political system. As a result, democracy will weaken and development plans will be severely hampered. Misuse of public funds will affect sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure.
