Krishna Prasad Sharma, an inspector from the Nepal Police headquarters (now promoted to DSP), was transferred to the police division of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority. In his three-month deputation, Sharma allegedly took bribes from people on the CIAA watch list, promising them to settle their cases.
When officials got a hint of what Sharma was doing, the CIAA sent him back to the police headquarters. While he should have faced an inquiry, Sharma was rewarded with a promotion in November.
Sources at the anti-graft body said Sharma was relieved of responsibilities after complaints were filed against him. The anti-graft body, which conducts stings to expose bribery, remained silent for some weeks about the misconduct of its own staffer. Only recently have they brought the issue to light.
CIAA spokesman Shreedhar Sapkota said Sharma was removed from his responsibility following a number of complaints about his involvement in dubious activities.
More worrisome is the CIAA officials’ claim that Sharma’s case is only the tip of the iceberg. There are reports that almost a dozen mid-ranking officials are involved in illegal activities for their own benefit but the CIAA has not taken action against them.
Observers say it is ironic that the office mandated to check corruption does not seem to be following the best practices. “There is neither a check and balance mechanism at the CIAA nor it has its own permanent workforce. It’s unfortunate,” says former Attorney Yubaraj Sangraula.
During his tenure at the Attorney General’s Office, Sangraula had recalled 12 joint-attorney generals, including Rajendra Subedi who was assigned to look into the Sudan scam involving senior officials. Subedi was found not to be carrying out a probe properly.
“A judicial probe raised questions about the work of some joint-attorney generals so they were posted elsewhere,” said Sangraula.
They were recalled after he noticed that some attorneys were having a retreat in Kathmandu’s star-hotels during office time. The former AG believes that most of the middle ranking officials get deputation to the CIAA based on their linkage with senior bureaucrats or politicians who feel secure to have their men in the anti-graft body that could expose their wrong deeds. Former CIAA Secretary Bhagwati Kumar Kafle, who worked as its acting chief commissioner for long and was a focal person during the Sudan scam investigation, said officials working for the watchdog face immense pressure when high-profile cases are taken up.
CIAA ex-officials confide that influential persons such as politicians and businesspersons and top security officials offer bribes to influence a case of their interest.
“I had to remain out of contact. I switched off my cell phone, asked my family members to do so, and deactivated my landline before filing a charge sheet against officials in the Sudan case,” recalled Kafle. “When influential politicians then called up my driver, I had him switch off his phone for a week.”
Another official, who was assigned to investigate deforestation in the far-western region, believes Kafle’s story. He was offered Rs 10 million but the case was filed in the Special Court.
CIAA officials are also charged with dragging people into controversy on unfounded grounds. When the anti-corruption body received a number of complaints against a public figure, an internal probe was conducted. ‘It was revealed that the charge was prepared by a CIAA official,” a top bureaucrat shared a few months ago.
In the lack of its own permanent cadres, the CIAA relies on government offices to arrange for investigating officers. Experts say problem begins from the very beginning--staff selection. Based on the nature of the corruption case, it consults with offices such as the AG’s Office, Nepal Police and Finance Ministry to lend the human resource.
No comments :
Post a Comment