Anti-Corruption Pledges Must Be Proven Through Action

It is easy for a government to say it is committed to controlling corruption. The harder task is to prove that commitment through impartial investigations into powerful individuals, protection of evidence and action under the law. Questions are now being raised in public about whether the government has passed this test. Anti-corruption strategies and promises of good governance are not enough on paper. The real measure is whether the same rules apply to everyone—not whom the government protects or declares guilty. The government has said it is fully committed to controlling corruption. People now want results, not speeches.

The Inam Sapkota case has made these questions more pressing. Media reports say Sapkota was in contact with judges, senior police officers, political figures and government officials. Reported exchanges with a Supreme Court justice about a case under consideration, along with details of financial dealings in which senior officials’ names have surfaced, have raised questions about the judiciary and other state institutions. But media reports are not, by themselves, a final determination of guilt. The government’s responsibility is neither to convict people through public statements nor to let the matter fade through silence. It must ensure an impartial, evidence-based investigation within a reasonable timeframe.

Reports say the Supreme Court’s full court meeting called for relevant authorities to investigate issues involving judges. That may open the way for an inquiry, but public confidence will not return simply by passing responsibility from one institution to another. There must be clear answers about who will investigate, the timeframe, how evidence will be protected and whether the findings will be made public. Judicial independence must be protected, but independence does not mean exemption from accountability.

Questions have also been raised about why the government has not rebutted the reports published by the media. It would be inappropriate for the government to rush either to deny or confirm reports connected to an ongoing investigation. The proper course is to allow the relevant bodies to investigate independently, ensure that evidence is not destroyed or compromised, and provide regular updates on the investigation’s progress within legal limits. When the government offers no fact-based response, its silence fuels suspicion of a cover-up. It is the government’s responsibility to dispel that suspicion.

News recently emerged that Bhojraj Ghimire, chief administrative officer of Madhyapur Thimi Municipality, was taken into the custody of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority along with Rs 3.3 million. The Commission alleges that the money was linked to a bribe, while Ghimire has denied the allegation. The investigation and judicial process must determine the facts. But when clear information about the progress of such inquiries is absent, how can the public know whether action is truly being taken?

If investigations slow down when senior officials, judges or politically connected individuals are named, while action is seen only against ordinary employees, the government’s anti-corruption commitment will appear selective. Being named in a report does not establish guilt; but neither is it just to grant someone immunity from investigation because of their position or influence. The same standard must apply to everyone: those accused have the right to a fair hearing, and public officials have a duty to answer questions about their conduct.

The government must now make its position clear: investigative agencies will face no pressure; the role of everyone named in the allegations will be examined on the basis of evidence; and findings will be made public once the legal process allows. If allegations are proven, action must follow. If the evidence is insufficient, the outcome should be made public in a way that protects the reputation of those found innocent. Transparency is essential in either case.

The fight against corruption cannot be won through speeches, statements or lists of strategic plans. It can be won only by establishing public confidence that investigations will proceed even when powerful people are implicated. Whether the government will falter or allow the law to take its course will be judged by its actions in the days ahead, not by its promises.