By Our Reporter
Nepal’s political leadership often speaks about good governance, anti-corruption efforts and restoring public trust in state institutions. Yet the newly adopted House of Representatives Regulations are sending a very different message.
At the center of the controversy is a set of provisions that could allow lawmakers accused of corruption, money laundering and other serious crimes to continue serving in Parliament while their cases move through the courts. The timing could hardly be worse.
Nepal is already facing heightened international scrutiny after being placed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. The country now faces pressure to strengthen action against money laundering, organized crime and illicit financial activities. Against that backdrop, Parliament has approved rules that many critics see as creating a protective shield for politicians.
The issue is not merely technical. It strikes at the heart of how Nepal defines accountability.
Under the new regulations, lawmakers can be suspended only under limited circumstances. A charge sheet alone is not enough. Suspension generally requires detention in a case carrying a sentence of three years or more, or a situation in which an accused lawmaker is absconding despite a court order.
The practical effect is significant. A parliamentarian facing serious corruption or money laundering charges may continue attending House sessions, voting on laws and influencing public policy while the case remains pending.
For ordinary citizens, this creates an uncomfortable contrast. Civil servants, police officers, military personnel and many other public officials can face suspension once serious charges are filed against them. Yet lawmakers, the very people responsible for making laws, appear to be receiving a higher degree of protection.
That contradiction is likely to become a major political issue. The controversy became even sharper because of recent political history. When money laundering and organized crime charges were filed against RSP leader Rabi Lamichhane in 2024, his parliamentary status was suspended under provisions of the Anti-money Laundering Act. At that time, many argued that public office holders should not continue exercising authority while facing such serious allegations.
Now Parliament appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
Supporters of the new regulations argue that lawmakers should not lose their elected positions merely because prosecutors file charges. They point to the principle of presumption of innocence and warn against politically motivated cases being used to remove elected representatives.
That argument carries some weight. Nepal’s political history includes instances in which criminal investigations have been accused of serving political purposes.
Yet the larger concern remains unanswered. How does Parliament maintain public confidence if lawmakers facing corruption or money laundering allegations continue participating in legislative affairs without restriction?
The problem is not simply legal. It is symbolic. Public institutions depend heavily on credibility. Citizens are more likely to trust anti-corruption campaigns when they see the same standards applied across society. When lawmakers appear to receive special treatment, skepticism naturally follows.
The controversy also places the Speaker and the ruling coalition under scrutiny. Opposition parties had demanded detailed review of the regulations and proposed multiple amendments. Instead, the rules were pushed through amid protests, procedural disputes and even physical confrontations inside the House chamber.
That process itself has raised additional questions about transparency and political intent. For the Rastriya Swatantra Party, the issue is particularly sensitive. The party rose to prominence by presenting itself as an alternative to traditional politics and by campaigning against corruption and impunity. Critics will now ask why a party elected on promises of accountability supported regulations that may help corruption accused lawmakers retain their parliamentary privileges.
The international dimension may prove equally important. FATF grey listing is not simply a reputational issue. Countries placed under enhanced monitoring face greater scrutiny from international financial institutions and investors. Nepal has been urged to demonstrate stronger enforcement against money laundering networks and financial crimes.
In that environment, any move perceived as weakening accountability mechanisms could attract unwanted attention from international observers.
Of course, these regulations alone will not determine Nepal’s FATF trajectory. Effective investigations, prosecutions and convictions matter far more. But political signals also matter. Laws and regulations communicate priorities.
At a time when Nepal needs to show commitment to fighting corruption, money laundering and organized crime, Parliament has chosen to create broader protections for its own members.
Nineteen years after the republic was established, citizens are increasingly demanding that leaders follow the same rules applied to everyone else. The new House regulations risk creating the opposite impression: that those who make the laws are also finding ways to place themselves beyond their reach. That perception, even more than the legal provisions themselves, may become the biggest political cost of this decision.
Login to add a comment