Corruption Is Defeated by Accountability, Not Speeches

Opposing corruption is easy; ensuring good governance is hard. Repeating pledges of clean government does not, by itself, make the state clean. Good governance means being prepared to answer openly how a decision was made, who made it, what legal basis supported it and who will be held responsible.

The recent cancellation of a contract for the Sunkoshi–Marin Diversion Project has brought these questions back into focus. As the project was preparing to open financial bids, police brought its director and the director general of the Department of Water Resources and Irrigation to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. The project announced the contract’s cancellation the following day. The notice cited a section of the Public Procurement Act but did not explain the reason for the cancellation. Government officials and police sources have given differing accounts of how the two officials were brought in.

These facts alone do not establish that the contract was cancelled because of corruption or that the officials were unlawfully detained. But the sequence of events at such a critical stage of public procurement is, in itself, a matter of serious public concern. When financial bids from competing companies are about to be opened, responsible officials are brought to the capital with police involvement and the contract is then cancelled, the government’s first duty is to answer citizens’ questions—not to suppress them.

Corruption does not always take the form of cash payments or personal gain. Making decisions about public resources in secret, undermining fair competition, putting responsible officials under pressure and withholding the reasons for decisions all carry the risk of state power being abused. A public contract is not the private business of an individual or an office. It is a decision tied to public money, the pace of development and citizens’ trust.

The first test of good governance is equal application of the law. Government officials may seek progress reports, investigate irregularities and, where necessary, initiate legal action. But they must do so under clear authority, through written procedures and with a proper record. The police should not be used to carry out pressure from an administrative office; they must act within the procedures set by law. If an official is required to explain something, the grounds for the summons, the subject of the inquiry and the procedure for bringing that person in must be clear. When the state exercises its power, the state must also accept responsibility for how it is used.

The second test is transparency in public procurement. If there were grounds to cancel the contract, the government should disclose which provision was breached, what evidence supported the decision and which authority made it. If the process was lawful, the government should have no hesitation in making the records available. Withholding the reason does not prove an allegation, but it does deepen needless suspicion and mistrust. It is the government’s and the project’s responsibility to show that the competition was fair and open.

The third test is an impartial investigation. The decision to cancel the contract, the process used to bring in the officials and the correspondence among the relevant offices should be independently examined. The investigating body must be free from the influence of those involved in the decision. Its findings should be made public. If irregularities are found, those responsible should face legal action; if the process is found to have been proper, the basis for that conclusion should also be explained to the public. The purpose of an investigation is not to declare someone guilty in advance, but to establish the facts and prevent similar disputes from recurring.

The government’s responsibility to control corruption does not begin only when a case reaches the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority or a court. It must make decision-making transparent as soon as risks emerge, prevent conflicts of interest, keep records at every stage of procurement and address complaints promptly. When responsibilities are vague, everyone points elsewhere when something goes wrong. When accountability is clear, good governance moves from paper into practice.

The government must earn public trust through results. If the contract had to be cancelled, it should publish the reasons. If bringing the officials in was a routine administrative step, it should clarify the legal basis. If evidence shows that anyone abused their office or power, the government should ensure an impartial response under the law. Silence, ambiguity and conflicting accounts do not resolve the problem; they weaken public trust in the state.

A government’s commitment to fighting corruption must be demonstrated through its most sensitive decisions, not its statements. No position stands above the law, no political interest stands above public property and no government stands above citizens’ questions. That is what good governance means: those who exercise power explain their reasons, those who make decisions accept responsibility, and those who break the law face its consequences.