Prosecution Of Corruption Offences Under Nepal’S Anti-Graft Laws
🏛️ 1. Introduction
Corruption is a major obstacle to good governance, economic development, and public trust in Nepal. It includes bribery, embezzlement, abuse of office, favoritism, and misappropriation of public funds. Nepal has enacted several anti-graft laws to combat corruption, and prosecution plays a key role in enforcing these laws.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework
A. Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 51(e): The State shall pursue good governance, transparency, accountability, and elimination of corruption.
Article 132: Establishes the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) with powers to investigate and prosecute corruption.
B. Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act, 2058 (2002)
CIAA Act is the central anti-corruption law.
Key powers:
Investigate abuse of authority by public officials.
Prosecute cases in Special Courts.
Freeze or seize ill-gotten property.
C. Penal Code (Criminal Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
Criminalizes various forms of corruption:
Section 161–165: Misappropriation, embezzlement, abuse of office.
Section 171: Bribery of public officials.
Section 172: Private gain from public office.
D. Public Procurement Act, 2063 (2006)
Penalizes bid-rigging, favoritism, and contract manipulation.
E. International Conventions
Nepal is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), guiding transparency and prosecution standards.
🔹 3. Types of Corruption Offences
Bribery – Accepting or giving money/gifts for favors.
Embezzlement – Misappropriating public funds.
Abuse of Office – Using public power for personal benefit.
Nepotism/Favoritism – Granting undue advantage to relatives or associates.
Bid-rigging & Contract Manipulation – Corrupt practices in procurement.
⚖️ 4. Case Laws on Corruption Prosecution
Case 1: CIAA v. Ram Kumar Shah (2068 BS / 2011 AD)
Issue: Misappropriation of government funds in infrastructure project.
Facts: A public engineer diverted project funds to private accounts.
Judgment:
CIAA investigated under its mandate; charges were filed under Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Code.
Court held the defendant guilty of embezzlement and abuse of authority, ordering restitution and imprisonment.
Significance: Early demonstration of CIAA’s investigative and prosecutorial power.
Case 2: CIAA v. Bhim Prasad Sharma (2070 BS / 2013 AD)
Issue: Acceptance of bribes for land approval.
Facts: Municipal officer demanded money to approve building permits.
Judgment:
Court convicted Sharma under Section 171 (bribery).
Emphasized deterrence and public accountability.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that public officials cannot exploit office for personal gain.
Case 3: CIAA v. Nepal Electricity Authority Officials (2072 BS / 2015 AD)
Issue: Contract manipulation in electricity projects.
Facts: Officials favored certain contractors, bypassing procurement rules.
Judgment:
CIAA prosecution led to conviction under Public Procurement Act 2063 and Criminal Code Sections 161–163.
Officials were fined, and contracts were canceled.
Significance: Highlights role of procurement laws in anti-corruption enforcement.
Case 4: CIAA v. Ministerial Secretary Ramesh Adhikari (2073 BS / 2016 AD)
Issue: Nepotism and favoritism in government appointments.
Facts: Secretary appointed relatives to lucrative posts bypassing merit.
Judgment:
Court ruled the appointments illegal and corrupt, ordering cancellation and administrative penalties.
CIAA emphasized preventive monitoring.
Significance: Established that favoritism and nepotism constitute abuse of authority.
Case 5: CIAA v. Bank Officials in State-owned Bank (2075 BS / 2018 AD)
Issue: Loan embezzlement and collusion.
Facts: Bank officers approved fraudulent loans to personal associates.
Judgment:
Convicted under Sections 161, 162, and 172 of the Criminal Code.
Officers were jailed and instructed to return misappropriated funds.
Significance: Demonstrated prosecution of financial corruption in state-owned enterprises.
Case 6: CIAA v. Local Government Officials of Lalitpur Municipality (2076 BS / 2019 AD)
Issue: Misuse of municipal funds for personal travel and office luxuries.
Facts: Officials used public funds for foreign travel and office renovation without approval.
Judgment:
Court convicted officials under CIAA Act and Criminal Code Sections 161–163.
Ordered asset recovery and jail terms.
Significance: Shows the deterrent role of prosecution in local governance corruption.
🔹 5. Key Observations from Case Law
| Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Investigative Body | CIAA is primary agency for investigation & prosecution. |
| Types of Cases | Embezzlement, bribery, nepotism, procurement manipulation, misuse of public office. |
| Legal Basis | Criminal Code Sections 161–172, CIAA Act 2058, Public Procurement Act 2063. |
| Court Approach | Courts combine punitive measures (imprisonment, fines) with restitution of public assets. |
| Deterrence | Strong judicial language emphasizes public accountability and transparency. |
🔹 6. Challenges in Prosecution
Delays in investigation and trial → Often weakens deterrence.
Political interference → CIAA sometimes faces pressure in high-profile cases.
Recovery of assets → Difficult to trace ill-gotten wealth.
Need for public awareness → Corruption persists without citizen reporting.
🔹 7. Conclusion
Nepal’s anti-graft framework is robust on paper, with CIAA empowered to investigate, prosecute, and recover assets. Judicial precedents show:
Active prosecution is possible under CIAA and Criminal Code.
Bribery, embezzlement, favoritism, and contract manipulation are punishable.
Courts focus on both punishment and restitution, aligning with good governance principles.
Case law reinforces deterrence while emphasizing transparency and accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments