KATHMANDU: As last week’s events unfolded, Nepal’s fragile political credibility took another blow, with the visa scam surrounding Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak revealing a deep-rooted pattern of impunity and political compromise.
The controversial three-party deal that shielded Lekhak from resignation or investigation, despite serious corruption allegations linked to his secretariat, underscores how coalition survival continues to trump accountability.
The episode has not only fractured opposition unity but also deepened public mistrust in institutions increasingly seen as instruments of political convenience rather than guardians of justice.
The recent political developments surrounding Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak reflect a recurring pattern of impunity and political compromise in Nepal’s governance.
The three-party agreement that spared Lekhak from resignation or a formal parliamentary investigation, despite serious allegations linking his close aide to a multi-million-rupee visa scam, raises fundamental questions about accountability in the state apparatus. The agreement appears to have been designed more to protect political interests than to uphold the integrity of public office.
The deal’s failure to call for an independent parliamentary investigation further undermines public faith in both the legislature’s oversight role and the CIAA’s independence, especially as corruption investigations increasingly become selective or politically brokered.
While Lekhak claims innocence and frames the controversy as a political attack, the scandal’s magnitude—reportedly involving Rs 10 million in daily bribes for visit visas—demands a more transparent and independent inquiry.
His insistence that a minister should not be held liable for subordinates’ misconduct underscores a broader culture where senior officials often evade responsibility despite systemic corruption operating under their watch. The absence of a parliamentary investigation committee as part of the resolution deal further highlights this evasion.
The CPN (Maoist Centre), which initially led parliamentary obstruction demanding Lekhak’s resignation, has faced criticism for capitulating under political pressure. Its decision to resume House proceedings based on mere verbal assurances from the ruling coalition suggests a retreat from its accountability stance.
The criticism from RSP and RPP, particularly Manish Jha and Rajendra Lingden, exposes deep fractures within the opposition and highlights dissatisfaction with superficial solutions to institutional corruption. Their fears that any investigation committee would be toothless if led by a Home Ministry official appear justified in the current political context.
The broader backdrop of corruption scandals—from the Bhutanese refugee scam to ongoing concerns about human trafficking—further erodes public confidence.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba facing scrutiny after being mentioned in an audio recording tied to trafficking allegations shows how deeply embedded political figures are in these controversies. Even as she denies the charges, the perception of wrongdoing and lack of swift legal action reinforce narratives of elite impunity.
In parallel, the Nepali Congress’s internal revival—evidenced by the upcoming Central Working Committee meeting after ten months—may reflect an attempt to consolidate power amid growing criticism. However, unless such meetings address governance failures and rising public disillusionment, they risk being seen as performative.
In sum, the visa scandal and its political fallout exemplify how Nepal’s ruling elites often prioritize coalition stability and personal networks over transparency and justice.
On the other hand, the strategic avoidance of formal probes, superficial commitments to accountability, and opposition disunity suggest that systemic reform remains elusive. This episode underscores the urgent need for stronger institutions and a political culture that places public service above party survival.
Meanwhile, the political atmosphere in Nepal is increasingly marred by a cascade of scandals, institutional friction, and fragile coalition dynamics, exposing deep cracks in the country’s governance framework.
Central to this current turbulence is the visit visa scandal involving Home Ministry officials, which not only spotlighted entrenched corruption at Nepal’s main international gateway but also tested the credibility of major parties—particularly the ruling Nepali Congress, its coalition partner CPN (Maoist Centre), and the CPN-UML.
Despite damning allegations that millions were extorted daily from migrant workers through a corrupt immigration network—allegedly reaching the home minister’s own secretariat—the ruling coalition reached a three-party deal that shielded Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak from resignation or parliamentary investigation.
This arrangement drew accusations of moral collapse and “loot-cracy” from opposition leaders like Rajendra Lingden (RPP) and Manish Jha (RSP), who criticized the Maoist Centre’s abrupt retreat from its earlier firm stance, revealing opportunistic political calculations masked as institutional responsibility.
Notably, Nepal Telecom’s managing director and 17 others now face formal corruption charges over billing and operational fraud, signaling that high-level probes are continuing—albeit selectively.
While Lekhak maintained his innocence and framed the allegations as an attack on political reputation rather than a legal failure, the entire episode reveals the extent to which executive accountability has become subservient to political pacts.
The deal’s failure to call for an independent parliamentary investigation further undermines public faith in both the legislature’s oversight role and the CIAA’s independence, especially as corruption investigations increasingly become selective or politically brokered.
Adding to this institutional malaise, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba—already under scrutiny for alleged ties to human trafficking networks—has now become embroiled in a media freedom controversy. Her phone call to Republic Media’s chief, which she claims was a plea for journalistic integrity, has been widely interpreted as an attempt to silence criticism.
Despite invoking her loyalty to press freedom, the framing of her remarks as “misleading” rather than engaged or constructive suggests a defensive, combative approach to media scrutiny—especially troubling when seen in the context of Nepal’s recent demotion in international press freedom rankings.
Meanwhile, other stories reflect growing dysfunction at the local government level, especially in Kathmandu Metropolitan City under Mayor Balen Shah. His administration faces dual corruption complaints—one concerning procurement irregularities in a municipal lift installation and another over expenditure on an international trip to Cannes.
Combined with long-standing internal tensions between the mayor and deputy mayor, these controversies underscore concerns about transparency, unilateral decision-making, and disregard for established procurement and budgetary norms.
Even the judiciary hasn’t been immune from public anger. The black-soot attack on Judge Khushiram Tharu following the acquittal of former MP Aftab Alam reflects growing frustration with judicial decisions perceived as politically motivated or unjust. While symbolic protest remains part of Nepal’s political culture, such actions erode judicial dignity and blur the line between activism and intimidation.
The convergence of scandals across the legislative, executive, and judicial arms points to a crisis of accountability and credibility—with party interests persistently overriding public interest and systemic reform.
Notably, Nepal Telecom’s managing director and 17 others now face formal corruption charges over billing and operational fraud, signaling that high-level probes are continuing—albeit selectively.
Still, this case contrasts sharply with the more politically sensitive Lekhak and Rana controversies, suggesting that anti-corruption enforcement remains vulnerable to political shielding.
Amid this chaos, former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s rumored political reentry has unnerved UML Chair KP Oli, revealing underlying factionalism and leadership uncertainty within the UML itself. Oli’s public rebuke of “rumor-spreading” around party succession exposes internal instability, possibly foreshadowing realignments ahead of UML’s next convention.
In response to international criticism and domestic advocacy, the government has also introduced new health screening guidelines for migrant workers—a rare example of proactive, policy-driven response to systemic issues. However, such reforms are often overshadowed by the political theatrics and institutional scandals dominating national discourse.
Taken together, these developments paint a portrait of a country grappling with political hypocrisy, executive impunity, fractured coalitions, and a reactive legal system.
The convergence of scandals across the legislative, executive, and judicial arms points to a crisis of accountability and credibility—with party interests persistently overriding public interest and systemic reform.
Comment