KATHMANDU: The Pokhara International Airport has once again become a topic of political controversy.
On April 18, a parliamentary report was released recommending that construction at the airport be suspended. This follows an inspection conducted by a parliamentary study team led by Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) Chairperson Rajendra Lingden, which visited the site for three days.
The findings and recommendations of the committee have sparked sharp debate, with some accusing Lingden of using the investigation for political gain. Critics, especially from RPP itself, claim the move was more about political optics than genuine accountability.
The report names seven officials and recommends further investigation into potential misuse of authority and corruption:
Pradeep Adhikari, Director General, Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN)
Binay Adhikari, Chief, Pokhara International Airport
Director of Projects, National Planning Commission
Promod Neupane, National Pride Projects Division
Rajendra Prasad Paudel, National Pride Project Administration
Engineer Bhajram Paudel, Director, CAAN
Sushil Gautam, Chairperson, Nepal Engineers’ Association (NEA)
The report recommends that the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the Department of Money Laundering Investigation take action against those involved.
Meanwhile, former Tourism Minister Sudan Kirati has also criticized the report, calling it an attempt to discredit the government and ongoing development work.
Is the parliamentary committee suggesting that the Chinese government or contractor misused funds? If so, committee coordinator Rajendra Lingden should clearly explain how this conclusion was reached.
Additionally, former Tourism Minister Yogesh Bhattarai also responded strongly, stating: “I was responsible for Tourism Ministry in 2076 BS. Efforts to tarnish the reputation of projects like Pokhara and Bhairahawa Airports with baseless media reports are politically motivated. The documents are with me, and I will reveal them if necessary.”
Key questions raised on the Pokhara Airport Report:
- Why was the report made public without being thoroughly discussed in the parliamentary committee?
It was released without the consensus of all members, and not even all RPP members signed it. Could this have undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the report?
- The report raises concerns about the quality of the airport’s runway and soil. But are these not technical issues best evaluated by aviation experts and engineers?
ICAO and other agencies haven’t raised such concerns. On what basis did the parliamentary committee question the runway quality, and is Pokhara Airport truly unsafe for operations?
- The airport was built under the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) model by a Chinese company and later handed over to Nepal.
Does the committee believe that the quality assurance processes of the Chinese contractor were flawed? Is this a veiled criticism of Chinese engineering and technology?
- The project was financed via a loan from China’s Exim Bank under the EPC model, with payments made directly to the contractor—not via Nepal’s financial system.
The report suggests Nepal is incurring debt without control over funds. But how does this align with the norms of EPC projects? Is the report clear on this?
- The report questions the airport’s cost reduction, stating that Rs 15 billion was cut by excluding certain components like transportation infrastructure.
But these components are often managed separately. Is it fair to attribute this omission to the Chinese contractor? Or is the parliamentary committee conflating different aspects of the project?
6: Where is the proof behind the claim of Rs 10 billion corruption in Pokhara Airport?
Allegations have surfaced claiming Rs 10 billion worth of corruption in the construction of Pokhara International Airport. However, the total contract cost of the project with the Chinese contractor was Rs 15 billion.
Of this, about Rs 3 billion is yet to be paid. If that’s the case, how can Rs 10 billion be considered as corruption, especially when some claim only Rs 2 billion has been spent on actual construction? Where did the rest of the Rs 10 billion go?
Moreover, if Rs 7 billion was genuinely used in construction, how could such a massive scam occur within that amount?
Some are even suggesting that corruption occurred within the Chinese side through funds issued by China Exim Bank.
Similarly, while the report suggests irregular billing for tasks like apron construction and drainage, CAAN maintains that not all works have been completed and about Rs 3 billion in payments are still pending.
Is the parliamentary committee suggesting that the Chinese government or contractor misused funds? If so, committee coordinator Rajendra Lingden should clearly explain how this conclusion was reached.
7: Why no clear naming of guilty parties if corruption took place?
If corruption truly occurred, why did the committee not clearly name and hold individuals accountable? The report vaguely implies that irregularities existed from the start of the contract process.
One paragraph mentions that the initial decision to proceed with the airport as a Regional International Airport under the EPC model was approved by the Cabinet.
Later, the government of Nepal, through bilateral discussions with China, forwarded the project proposal to Exim Bank in early 2016.
The agreement was limited to a Chinese contractor, yet three Chinese companies reportedly submitted proposals. Among them, China CMC Engineering presented the lowest bid.
Although their bid exceeded the initial cost estimate, the Public Procurement Monitoring Office and the Ministry of Finance approved the proposal.
The report mentions that a Cabinet meeting on March 26 later finalized the total approved cost, which led to the agreement between CAAN and CMC.
Now, the report seems to hint at irregularities involving CAAN, the Ministry of Finance, the Chinese Embassy, and Exim Bank. But if these bodies were all part of the process, how is it possible that only CAAN is being held responsible? Shouldn’t the entire contractual process and its oversight mechanisms be scrutinized?
8: Were there really technical and economic irregularities in the construction?
The report claims technical and financial irregularities during the airport’s construction—specifically citing concerns about the soil testing and the quality of the runway base.
It states that tests weren’t conducted with enough time and thoroughness. But has there been any visible damage to the runway due to soil-related issues? The report doesn’t present solid evidence to support this claim.
Furthermore, CAAN has argued that early agreements between them and CMC Engineering covered additional work such as passenger services and infrastructure expansion, which were later added to the original contract. These inclusions naturally increased the cost.
The report also questions the elevation of the runway, but it has been raised by 11 meters and 25 centimeters above ground level, consistent with design specifications. Bills submitted by the contractor reflect this work, and CAAN officials claim they match field reality.
Moreover, the report claims Rs 320 million was allocated to a businessman for work related to soil testing and construction—yet this expense isn’t mentioned in the original agreement between CAAN and the Chinese contractor.
Similarly, while the report suggests irregular billing for tasks like apron construction and drainage, CAAN maintains that not all works have been completed and about Rs 3 billion in payments are still pending.
According to CAAN Director Pradeep Adhikari, the completed work is proportionate to the payments released.
The report’s concerns about added costs due to extra items may be valid, but CAAN contends that these were necessary upgrades—not cost inflations.
Therefore, claims of financial misappropriation need stronger evidence, and the basis of those claims must be publicly clarified.
The report also alleges financial irregularities involving U.S. dollars during soil testing but fails to provide technical documentation explaining how these irregularities occurred.
It raises concerns about the runway being constructed lower than the natural topography of the land, questioning whether it is suitable for flight operations.
However, the Aircraft Operations Department and the Flight Inspection Bureau have already approved Pokhara International Airport as operational and safe.
In addition, the airport has received ISO certification, raising doubts about the technical flaws pointed out by the parliamentary committee.
CAAN officials have responded by stating that all construction and testing were conducted according to the contract with a designated consultant.
They emphasized that any claims of unpaid bills to the Chinese contractor are baseless, as the payment structure is clearly documented.
The report’s allegations seem inconsistent with official findings from CAAN and Nepal Oil Corporation regarding the fuel storage facility, which was developed according to standard procedures at other airports as well.
The Auditor General’s report, which flagged Rs 2.22 billion in questionable expenditures, is also cited. However, contradictions arise between this report and the parliamentary committee’s findings. The latter recommends action against individuals involved since the feasibility study phase, including names like CAAN’s Director General Adhikari.
Is Rajendra Lingden trying to address legitimate issues, or is this part of a broader attempt to discredit the airport project for political gain?
Still, the report lacks a detailed analysis of these individuals’ specific roles or how their actions led to irregularities.
Moreover, the report claims Rs 320 million was allocated to a businessman for work related to soil testing and construction—yet this expense isn’t mentioned in the original agreement between CAAN and the Chinese contractor.
This raises serious doubts about the report’s internal consistency and depth of investigation.
The Public Accounts Committee’s report, led by Lingden, implies that corruption may have occurred in projects totaling nearly Rs 22 billion.
Yet it also acknowledges the limitations of technical analysis and lacks solid evidence to prove irregularities. Since the project followed the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) model, and payments were directly managed by China’s Exim Bank, no funds were transferred into Nepal’s financial system.
This weakens the claim that large-scale corruption occurred in Nepal itself.
Furthermore, no international regulatory body or foreign airline has flagged any safety or operational concerns regarding Pokhara Airport.
If the runway, infrastructure, and technology all meet international standards, and no credible external sources have raised red flags, how strong are the committee’s claims?
In conclusion, it’s unclear whether this report truly aims to protect public interest or serves a political agenda.
Is Rajendra Lingden trying to address legitimate issues, or is this part of a broader attempt to discredit the airport project for political gain?
These questions require serious, independent research and objective evaluation beyond partisan narratives.
Comment