KATHMANDU: Since the formation of a coalition government by the two largest parties in the federal parliament — the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML — there has been a flurry of corruption cases filed against political leaders.
In just 11 months of the joint government’s tenure, three influential sitting MPs—from both ruling and opposition parties—have been charged in various corruption-related offenses.
The latest case involves Madhav Kumar Nepal, a former Prime Minister and the chair of the opposition CPN (Unified Socialist), elected from Rautahat-1.
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) filed a corruption case against Nepal and 92 others in connection with the Patanjali land scam. The case was submitted to the Special Court on Thursday.
Following the filing, Nepal’s position as a Member of the House of Representatives has been automatically suspended.
Earlier, Nepali Congress MP Mohan Bahadur Basnet faced a similar fate after the CIAA lodged a case against him in the Special Court.
Elected from Sindhupalchowk-2, Basnet is among 16 individuals accused of corruption in the procurement of the “Telecommunication Traffic Monitoring and Fraud Control System” (TERAMOX) for the Nepal Telecommunications Authority. The CIAA claims damages amounting to over Rs 3.21 billion.
“Under existing Nepali law, decisions made by the Council of Ministers are not subject to prosecution,” Ghimire said. “From that perspective, filing a case against a former Prime Minister for a Cabinet decision appears legally unsound.”
Likewise, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) chair and former Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane at the Kaski District Court.
He faces charges of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering. Following this, Lamichhane—elected from Chitwan-2—was also suspended from parliament and is currently in custody.
A new trend appears to be taking hold in Nepali politics: High-profile leaders from both the ruling coalition and the opposition are facing legal action.
During the tenure of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s government, one corruption case after another has been filed, raising both praise and suspicion.
While some welcome this as a much-needed accountability drive, others allege political vendetta.
Following the case against him, Madhav Kumar Nepal claimed the move was politically motivated. Speaking to journalists in his home district Rautahat shortly after the news broke, he alleged that Prime Minister Oli was behind the prosecution.
“He (Oli) has been targeting me from the start. His goal is to end my political career,” Nepal said. “This is not the first time he has tried something like this. He is a man driven by vengeance.”
The Unified Socialist Party has echoed this sentiment, accusing the Oli-led administration of abusing authority to settle political scores.
On the other hand, some observers argue that such prosecutions, regardless of timing, are necessary to fight impunity and clean up politics. The debate continues: Is this a genuine push for good governance, or a targeted purge cloaked in legality?
Ruling UML Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula objected to attempts to link Prime Minister Oli directly to the CIAA’s legal actions, defending the independence of the anti-corruption body.
As more leaders fall under investigation, the boundary between justice and political strategy remains under intense public scrutiny.
Leaders react to case against Nepal: Revenge or rule of law?
Speaking to reporters outside the Parliament building, UML Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula dismissed allegations that the Prime Minister was behind the corruption case against Madhav Kumar Nepal.
“This is their vindictive expression,” he said. “It is inappropriate to make such accusations without basis. It’s not good for their health either. It is not right to keep blaming the Prime Minister for the actions of a constitutional commission, nor to make disparaging comments about state institutions.”
Earlier, Rajendra Pandey, senior Vice Chair of the Unified Socialist Party, had alleged to the media that the case against Chairman Nepal was filed on Prime Minister Oli’s instructions.
The Unified Socialist Party released a statement Thursday evening, calling the CIAA’s case a political conspiracy.
“The current government, driven by a sense of political revenge, has been conspiring against our party for some time—something we have made public repeatedly,” General Secretary Ghanshyam Bhusal stated.
“We believe this case is another incident in that series of conspiracies. Any such effort will be countered.”
The main opposition party, the Maoist Centre, echoed similar concerns. Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” remarked on Friday that the CIAA’s move “smells of political revenge” by Prime Minister Oli.
“There’s a whiff of political vendetta here,” Prachanda said of the corruption case filed against former PM Nepal in the Patanjali land scam. “The CIAA’s actions have raised serious questions.”
He also recalled a previous instance where the CIAA declined to pursue a case against former Prime Ministers Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and Madhav Kumar Nepal over the Lalita Niwas land case, citing lack of jurisdiction.
“I have personally seen the CIAA’s letter stating that questions raised regarding Baburam Bhattarai and Madhav Nepal in the Lalita Niwas case fall outside its jurisdiction, and that such matters should be handled by the Cabinet,” he said.
“But now the CIAA has made a policy reversal by filing this case against Madhav Nepal. That contradiction raises questions, and perhaps the CIAA will have to answer for it.”
The ruling Nepali Congress also expressed dissatisfaction with the case. Congress Chief Whip Shyam Kumar Ghimire argued that the prosecution is legally flawed.
“Under existing Nepali law, decisions made by the Council of Ministers are not subject to prosecution,” Ghimire said. “From that perspective, filing a case against a former Prime Minister for a Cabinet decision appears legally unsound.”
He warned that such actions by constitutional bodies could erode democratic norms. “If constitutional bodies begin to operate in violation of legal provisions, it casts doubt on the future of democracy,” he said.
“Until the law is amended, the current legal framework must prevail. As it stands, prosecution over Cabinet decisions is not permitted under the law.”
Comment