E D I T O R I A L

Kathmandu, Friday June 13, 2003  Jestha 30,  2060.

‘Yes’ to transparency

Some prominent politicians, including former Prime Minister G P Koirala, have accused the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) having acted as a ‘puppet’ in the hands of ‘forces behind the scene’. Koirala’s assertion became more strident after CIAA rushed to frame up the former Prime Minister and some of his colleagues ostensibly on the basis of the report submitted by the Judicial Inquiry Commission on Property (JICP) to the government.

The government led by Lokendra Bahadur Chand kept the report in its exclusive custody for more than six weeks after the JICP Chief Justice, Bhairab Prasad Lamsal, submitted it to the king, and as the agitation of five political parties against the October 4 royal move seemed to be gaining some momentum, the report was referred to CIAA for necessary action.

CIAA in its enthusiasm exhibited more lust for publicity than actually weighing the pros and cons of the course it was going to adopt. Koirala and his colleagues, along with other 30, were served with the summon in the light of the JICP report which has not been made public so far. The opaque nature of the use of JICP by the Chand government and CIAA has generated more doubts than winning public confidence that it was serious in pursuing investigation against the cases of corruption. In the past, the anti-corruption body has come under sharp criticism for its high-handed and seemingly vindictive approach towards many individuals and institutions. Its latest action only added credence to that apprehension.

Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa did not quite disagree with the allegation of political parties that the action against Koirala and leaders of agitating parties was guided more by political vendetta. The Chand government never seriously considered the demand that the JICP report should be made public. Nor did CIAA make any effort to explain to those served with notice about the nature or details of charges it wanted to investigate. It is a normal practice in any democracy to make judicial commission report public before any action is initiated. A judicial commission and its alleged report cannot be used as a tool for political blackmail or victimisation. Nor should CIAA be acting as a pawn of the government.

It would be a welcome move if the Prime Minister takes a bold step and makes the Lamsal Commission report public, so that the people can judge whether the Chand government was being selective and vindictive in choosing the targets. Such a transparency will also help in salvaging the dwindling image of CIAA which has been given sweeping powers to investigate into the cases of corruption and abuse of authority. Sadly, there have been many instances in the past—right from Mallick Commission’s time—that all judicial commissions’ reports have not been made public. The present government must give a good-bye to that practice and begin an exercise towards transparency.