Questions Over the Government’s “Selective” Conduct: Good Governance or Political Choice?
The government claims that it has placed corruption control, asset investigation, accountability for protest related incidents and criminal inquiry at the center of its governance agenda. However, some recent decisions and actions have raised a counter question: is the law being applied equally to all in the name of good governance, or is the state acting selectively on the basis of power calculations, party interests and political convenience?
This debate intensified after the arrest of former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak. The government said the arrests were made in line with the decision to implement the report of the inquiry commission led by Gauribahadur Karki on the events of Bhadra 23 and 24. But when it was reported that the same report had also recommended investigation against administrative and security officials, along with political leadership, a serious question emerged: was the standard of action the same for everyone?
Publicly available details about the Cabinet decision and the arrest process suggest that the government acted swiftly, but without sufficient clarity on legal procedure and institutional balance. In this case, the government’s challenge is not only to establish political accountability, but also to ensure that such accountability is seen as lawful and procedurally sound.
In a democratic system, investigation against a former prime minister or a former home minister is not impossible. But such investigation must move forward on the basis of evidence, due process, jurisdiction and equal treatment, in a manner that does not create suspicion of political revenge. Repeated judicial questions over procedure should be taken as a serious institutional warning for the government.
The second controversy is linked to the House of Representatives Rules, 2083. Public reports show that the rules were passed amid opposition protest and obstruction of the rostrum. A legal debate has now emerged over the relationship between Rules 247 and 259. While Rule 247 provides for the suspension of lawmakers held in judicial custody during trial, the interpretation of Rule 259, which treats the rules as having the force of special law, has created uncertainty over how other existing laws apply to members of Parliament.
This debate should not be reduced to the support or opposition of a single party or individual. Parliamentary privilege is a necessary democratic instrument, but privilege cannot mean exemption from criminal accountability. Parliament is a lawmaking body, and the rules it frames must remain consistent with the principle of equality before the law. Otherwise, there is a risk that the rules will be viewed as an instrument designed to protect lawmakers.
The third major issue is the asset investigation commission. The government has formed a commission led by former Supreme Court justice Rajendra Kumar Bhandari to investigate the assets of high ranking public officials who have held office since the political transition of 2062/63 B.S. According to public details, the commission includes former judges, a former police official and a chartered accountant.
Asset investigation is necessary and, in principle, a positive step. But if its timeline, jurisdiction and exceptions are not clearly defined, it too may become a political tool. If good governance is truly the objective, the scope of investigation should not be limited according to political convenience. Corruption and unexplained wealth are not confined to one period, one party or one system of governance. Therefore, the credibility of the commission will depend not only on its leadership, but also on its mandate, transparency, commitment to making reports public and courage to reach all centers of power equally.
The fourth controversy concerns Home Minister Sudhan Gurung. After questions were raised regarding his asset declaration and share investments, Gurung resigned on Baisakh 9. A probe committee formed afterward reportedly submitted a 45 page report to the Prime Minister. However, after Gurung returned to the Home Ministry without the report being made public, further questions were raised over transparency. Official records of the Home Ministry also list Gurung again as Home Minister.
This is where the government’s claim of good governance faces its toughest test. No individual should be treated as guilty unless allegations are proven. But when serious questions are raised about a public office holder, and the investigation report is kept confidential while the same person is reappointed, public trust is weakened. Until the findings of the government formed committee are made public, the question remains whether the so called clean chit was a political decision or a conclusion based on facts.
The fifth issue relates to money laundering investigations against business figures. In the cases involving Dipak Bhatta and Sulav Agrawal, the Special Court had previously extended their remand for investigation. According to later public reports, the court ordered Dipak Bhatta and Sulav Agrawal to be sent to judicial custody for trial in a money laundering case.
A court order is part of the judicial process, but questions surrounding initial arrests, detention and the style of investigation cannot be ignored. If the state is seen to follow a pattern of detaining first and hearing later, it can negatively affect both the business environment and legal security.
The case involving the Deuba couple has also highlighted the sensitivity of jurisdiction and procedure. The Supreme Court issued an interim order not to immediately arrest former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and Arzu Rana Deuba. Public reports indicate that the court considered the jurisdictional issue related to money laundering cases, which fall under the Special Court. This shows that investigative agencies must be active, but they cannot ignore jurisdiction and due process.
The arrest of Lumbini Province Assembly member Rekha Sharma and the court’s order allowing investigation without detention send a similar message. She had been arrested on allegations related to child labor exploitation, but the Kathmandu District Court ordered that the investigation proceed while keeping her outside custody. Even when allegations are serious, the state’s response must be legally sustainable. Otherwise, the courts will repeatedly have to correct government actions.
Overall, the government now stands between two contrasting images. On one hand, it has opened investigations against powerful political figures, high ranking officials and influential businesspersons who were often treated as untouchable in the past. From the perspective of good governance, this may be seen as a positive beginning. On the other hand, the timing and scope of actions, secrecy of reports, reappointments and institutional ambiguity created through parliamentary rules have prevented the government from freeing itself from the charge of selective conduct.
To make its good governance campaign credible, the government must immediately take three steps. First, inquiry and investigation reports should be made public, except where the law clearly restricts disclosure. Second, the standards for arrest, investigation, suspension and asset inquiry must be written, transparent and applied equally to all. Third, Parliament, the police, government commissions and the executive branch must not appear to function as political shields for any party or individual.
The rule of law does not mean punishment for those disliked and protection for those favored. The real test of law is not only whether action is taken against opponents, but whether the same standard is applied to those close to power and those linked to the government itself. The present government is now in that very dock of accountability. To sustain its slogan of good governance, it needs more than political speeches. It needs evidence, due process and transparency.
