Submit your Article

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Nepal presents a fascinating paradox for legal and business scholars. While the nation’s legislative framework, anchored by the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act, 2019 (FITTA), signals a commitment to global capital, the practical FDI approval process in Nepal remains complex and, at times, opaque. For a foreign entity seeking to invest, understanding the legal nuances is as critical as identifying a viable business opportunity. Navigating the regulatory landscape requires a meticulous approach to documentation and a clear comprehension of the roles played by various governmental bodies, including the Office of Company Registrar.

The legal framework: Statutory instruments and jurisdictional mandates

The legal foundation for foreign investment in Nepal is principally established by the FITTA, 2019, and the Industrial Enterprises Act, 2020. FITTA broadens the definition of foreign investment beyond traditional equity to include loan investments, re-investment of dividends, lease financing, and investment in venture capital funds. It is designed to be the single-window law for foreign investment, though in practice, other ancillary laws like the Companies Act, 2006, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1962, also come into play. A key aspect of FITTA is its jurisdictional delineation. The Department of Industry (DOI) is the primary approving authority for investments up to NPR 6 billion, while the Investment Board of Nepal (IBN) handles projects exceeding this threshold. This dual-jurisdiction model is intended to streamline the process by matching the approving body to the scale of the project. However, the requirement for subsequent approvals from the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) for fund repatriation and foreign loan approvals adds further layers of legal compliance. A savvy law firm in Nepal is essential to help investors interpret these regulations and ensure they are compliant from the very beginning.

FDI approval and company registration in Nepal: A step-by-step procedural blueprint

The FDI process is a sequential journey with distinct legal and administrative milestones. The first and most crucial step is obtaining the foreign investment approval, which is initiated by submitting a comprehensive application to either the DOI or the IBN. This application must include a detailed project report, outlining financial projections, technical feasibility, and the proposed investment amount. Once the investment is approved, the foreign entity proceeds with Company Registration in Nepal at the Office of Company Registrar. This is a critical juncture where the foreign company is formally incorporated as a legal entity in Nepal. The documents required for registration include the foreign company's Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, and a formal resolution authorizing the investment. Following company registration, the newly formed entity must register with the Inland Revenue Office for tax purposes and, if applicable, with the local ward office. Finally, a crucial step for a foreign investor is to register the foreign investment with the Nepal Rastra Bank, as required by the FITTA, to facilitate future repatriation of profits and capital. The assistance of a specialized Law firm in Nepal is indispensable during these stages to ensure all legal requirements are met and to minimize procedural delays.

Documentation and due diligence: The cornerstone of legal compliance

A successful FDI application in Nepal hinges on the meticulous preparation and submission of a comprehensive set of documents. Legal practitioners emphasize that due diligence is not merely a formality but a non-negotiable prerequisite. The application for foreign investment approval must include, among other things, a notarized copy of the foreign company’s incorporation documents, a letter of commitment from the investor, and a bank-issued Financial Credibility Certificate verifying the investor's financial capability. This certificate is particularly crucial as it provides a legal basis for the financial viability of the project. Furthermore, depending on the nature of the industry, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report may also be required. At the Office of Company Registrar, documents such as the Power of Attorney for a local representative and passport copies of the foreign directors must be submitted. The specific requirements for Company Registration in Nepal can be intricate and vary depending on the type of business vehicle (e.g., private limited company, public company, or branch office). It is here that the expertise of a law firm in Nepal becomes invaluable, as they can navigate the minutiae of these documentary requirements and liaise with the relevant authorities on behalf of the investor.

Statistical analysis and recent trends (2024-2025): A discrepancy between law and reality

A legal framework, however robust in its design, is ultimately judged by its practical outcomes. A review of recent FDI statistics reveals a persistent disparity between the stated legal intent and the actual flow of foreign capital. According to a report by the Nepal Rastra Bank, the FDI stock in Nepal reached Rs 333bn in the fiscal year 2023/24, a 12.7 percent increase from the previous year. While this indicates a growing level of total foreign investment, a more granular analysis shows that net FDI inflows were only Rs 8.4bn for the same period. This suggests that while commitments are being made, the actual injection of funds is a fraction of the approved pledges. For the month of July 2024, FDI inflows were $14.4m, which is a nominal increase compared to the same period in the previous year. However, according to the UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2025, FDI inflows to Nepal experienced a sharp decline in 2024, falling to $57m. This stark contrast between different data sources highlights the volatile nature of FDI in Nepal. For the beginning of the current fiscal year 2025/26 (mid-July to mid-August 2025), preliminary data from the Nepal Rastra Bank shows a foreign direct investment (equity only) of Rs 691.5m. These statistics underscore a critical legal and policy challenge: the legal mechanisms for approval and registration exist, but they are not translating into consistent, large-scale investment.

In conclusion, for foreign investors in Nepal, navigating the legal landscape requires a deep understanding of the FDI approval process in Nepal. While the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FITTA) aims to attract foreign capital, persistent procedural hurdles exist, creating a gap between investment commitments and actual inflows. To ensure success, investors must meticulously handle documentation at the Office of Company Registrar and seek guidance from a specialized law firm in Nepal. The government's continued reform efforts to streamline inter-agency coordination are crucial. Ultimately, transforming Nepal into a regional investment hub depends on addressing these regulatory inefficiencies to build investor confidence and turn the country's potential into a profitable reality.

Prabin Kumar Yadav

Kathmandu School of Law

I built my first science project with nothing but YouTube and frustration. In a world driven by science and technology, my school didn’t even mention robotics. During my time at school, I spent more than 15 hours a day sitting in classrooms, being taught the best strategies—how to memorize answers, how to present them in exams, and ultimately how to secure a flawless GPA. At the very end, we were even taught how to cheat in exams—not directly, but cleverly enough to boast a 100 percent pass rate at school. But behind those glowing numbers was a harsh reality: over 90 percent of the students lost all interest in science. 

My friends even told me the SEE would be the last time they would ever engage in the scientific field—not because of different interests, but because of frustration. We lacked practical education, we lacked skill-based learning, we lacked research exposure—and most of all, we lacked proper guidance. This isn’t the story of my school—it’s the story of most educational institutions across Nepal. In fact, it reflects a deep flaw in the entire education system.

Looking back, I often wonder how things could have been if we had been introduced to robotics early on—a subject that teaches not just science, but also creativity, teamwork, and real-world problem-solving. Robotics is a branch of engineering and computer science that involves designing and building machines that can sense, move, and respond using sensors and programming. These systems interact with the real world and provide hands-on experience in innovation and critical thinking from a young age. “Even a simple robot that avoids obstacles or follows a line can spark a light of wonder in a child”.

While robotics may sound technical or expensive, the truth is it doesn’t require a rocket scientist or a massive budget. With affordable kits and open-source platforms now available, it has become one of the most effective and accessible ways to improve practical education and expose students to global tech trends. Yet when we mention robotics to teachers and parents, it is often seen as a luxury. “Seeing robotics as a luxury today will cost our future innovators tomorrow.”

The global job market is rapidly shifting towards Artificial Intelligence and Automation. In this new era, basic knowledge in computer programming and AI is crucial—no matter what field you’re from or what field you want to pursue. While coding was once reserved for higher education, it’s increasingly being introduced in K–12 classrooms, even for children under the age of eight—especially in tech-innovator countries like the United States, China, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Finland, where kindergarten coding is becoming common. “Nepal is failing to prepare its youth for the future by ignoring robotics education in early classrooms”.

The earlier children are introduced to robotics, the more naturally they develop critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills. At a young age, the brain is wired to absorb complex ideas through play and experimentation—making grades 5 to 8 the perfect window to explore technology hands-on.Studies by Bers (2010), Eguchi (2014), and the OECD reveal that early robotics education enhances computational thinking, problem-solving skills, creativity, and iterative testing. Most importantly, it boosts confidence and interest in STEM, while also building strong teamwork and communication skills, making STEM education inclusive for children from diverse backgrounds

Many students in Nepal lose interest in science due to rote-based learning rather than experiential learning or problem-solving. Robotics introduces practical, hands-on learning that can reignite curiosity. It turns our passive education into active learning and helps align our classrooms with global trends and innovation.

In many European countries, coding is often seen as a path to future careers—a tool for building resilience, confidence, motivation, and a strong leadership mindset. It sharpens problem analysis, logical thinking, and analytical reasoning in young learners. If our youth are not equipped with these skills early on, they may face unemployment and irrelevance in tomorrow’s digital economy. “Using this, they may be able to create their own projects to demonstrate in science exhibitions, rather than copying ideas from YouTube and Internet.”

 Introducing robotics in Nepal comes with critical challenges. First, the most significant—lack of awareness. Many people, including high-ranking officials and school administrators, still view robotics as a luxury and irrelevant to traditional careers. Second, there is a severe lack of infrastructure—many public and even private schools continue to struggle with basic facilities like science labs, digital instruments (projectors, TVs), electricity, and internet access. 

As of 2021, fewer than 20 percent of government schools in Nepal had internet access, and only 12 percent had both computers and connectivity. Third, teachers are rarely trained in programming, digital tools, robotics, or AI. So even if kits are available, there’s often no one qualified to guide students. Lastly, the national curriculum is rigid and slow to adapt, with no structured policy to introduce robotics in primary or middle school.

That being said, overcoming these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach. First, the government should invest in STEM education by establishing robotics labs in schools and colleges, while also empowering research and innovation. Public–private partnerships with organizations actively contributing to this field—such as Engineers Vlogs, Robotech Nepal, and the Robotics Association of Nepal—can reduce costs and support curriculum development. With proper planning and execution, mobile robotics labs (vans) can be deployed to rural areas where resources are limited. Ultimately, the most powerful and effective solution lies in raising awareness and empowering both educators and institutions to embrace this transformation.

From this, I conclude: without the urgent integration of robotics education into the national curriculum, Nepal risks leaving its youth behind in a technology-driven world. By investing in teacher training, affordable kits, and curriculum updates today, “we can empower curious minds to become bold innovators—and lead the future of Nepal”.

Siddhant Pokhrel

St Xavier’s College

What happens when governments are no longer held accountable? That question, in my view, cuts straight to the heart of nearly every crisis we see around the world today—whether it’s corruption, social injustice, or growing inequality. And while some may see accountability as just a technical concept or a legal matter, I believe it’s something far more fundamental: it’s about trust, responsibility, and the kind of future we want to build.

I’ve often thought about what it truly means to live under a government that is answerable to its people. It’s easy to take the idea for granted especially in countries that hold regular elections or where democratic institutions still exist on paper. But real accountability isn’t about just holding an election every few years. It’s about what happens in between those elections. It’s about whether public officials serve the people or simply serve themselves.

The cost of no accountability

When those in power are not questioned, challenged, or monitored, they begin to drift away from the interests of the public. In many places, this has led to blatant corruption. Public money meant for essential services like education, healthcare, or clean water vanishes into private bank accounts. Mega-projects are announced with fanfare, only to be left half-finished while communities continue to suffer.

I’ve personally seen this: roads that are “renovated” every election cycle but never actually improved, schools that lack basic supplies while the education budget is reported as fully spent, and public offices that operate more like private clubs. These things don't just happen by accident. They happen when no one is held responsible.

It’s not just about money—it’s about life. When governments ignore accountability, it’s often the most vulnerable who pay the highest price. Poor governance during natural disasters, pandemics, or economic downturns leaves millions without support. And when people protest or speak out, they are often met with violence, censorship, or imprisonment.

The slow death of democracy

One of the most dangerous outcomes of a government without accountability is the slow erosion of democracy. When politicians are not held to the promises they make, and when institutions like the courts or the press are silenced or co-opted, citizens begin to feel powerless. And when people lose faith in the system, democracy weakens from the inside.

Democracy is not a self-sustaining machine. It requires constant maintenance and accountability is the oil that keeps its gears running smoothly. Without it, we don’t just risk mismanagement. We risk authoritarianism.

Why we must care

Some may say, “Well, what can one person do?” Honestly, I’ve asked myself the same thing. In the face of systemic corruption or abuse, individual actions can feel small. But I believe change begins when people start asking questions. When we demand transparency, when we support investigative journalism, when we vote wisely and stay informed, we contribute to a culture of accountability.

We also need to remember that governments work for us. That means they should fear betraying the public trust, not the other way around.

Accountability isn’t just about punishing bad behavior, it’s also about encouraging good governance. When leaders know they are being watched and evaluated, they are more likely to act in the public’s best interest. They become more transparent, more honest, and more focused on long-term progress rather than short-term gain.

A vision for the future

Imagine a society where government budgets are published in full and explained clearly. A society where journalists are protected, public meetings are open and well-attended, and whistleblowers are praised. That’s what accountability looks like. Of course, no government will ever be perfect. Mistakes will happen. But the difference between a responsible government and a reckless one lies in whether it owns up to those mistakes or buries them. Accountability is what makes the difference between a system that learns and improves, and one that decays in silence.

To some, this might all sound idealistic, but I don’t think so. Demanding accountability is simply part of being an engaged, responsible citizen. If we don’t speak up, if we don’t question those in power, we end up becoming complicit in our own decline. Governments without accountability don’t just fail, they fail us. And that’s why it matters. Because when leaders stop answering to the people, the people end up paying the price. It’s time we stop accepting silence and start demanding answers.

Amisha Baniya

Kathmandu School of Law

As a writer, I will continue to write as long as the fight concerns the public and the country. I often wondered what if one day every social media app and site were to shut down? This was just me being curious, not knowing the larger consequences. Today, however, such contemplation feels urgent.

As I write this, my eyes shift between the desktop and the window, reflecting on the weight of the present ban imposed by the government on 26 social media apps, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram,YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.

The official reason: these apps failed to register as per the Social Media Bill tabled this year. The law mandates that social media platforms register themselves with the government, designate a contact person, and appoint a grievance officer to handle complaints. It also allows the government to deny or revoke operation if a platform is considered a threat to national sovereignty, national interest, and social harmony. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ordered both domestic and foreign social media platforms to be listed with the government to allow monitoring of “unwanted” content. 

This isn’t the first instance that Nepal has imposed such restrictions. In 2023, TikTok was banned, only to be lifted after its registration issue was resolved.

For years, Nepal had been showing improvement in the global index of freedom of speech and e-governance. But with bans on social media platforms, the country could slide down the index, tarnishing our reputation in the international arena. 

We are well aware of how social media has deeply shaped our lives. From connecting people across distances to educating minds, creating opportunities for employment, and even serving as a source of income—it has, in many ways, become another world we inhabit.

As a graduate of media studies and a current student of international relations, I understand the government’s concerns. Sure, sovereignty cannot be compromised. Yet, I also question whether such a sweeping ban is the right decision. There should be a logical and a diplomatic route to approach things that are of public concern.

Now, with the ban curtailing the very basics of our fundamental rights—the right to freedom of expression (17), in this case the freedom to choose a medium, to express, and to be seen; the right to communication (19), the freedom to speak out; and the right to information (27), the freedom to access public knowledge—I am left to wonder about the right to social justice (42), which demands ‘inclusive participation and equitable opportunities’. 

Our constitution clearly states the sovereignty and state authority of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepalis. So, without the people’s fundamental rights, sovereignty itself loses meaning. So the real question remains: is the latest ban on social media really about safeguarding sovereignty or is it a form of media censorship. 

As Nepal is set to graduate from least developed country (LDC) status in 2026, the stakes are even higher. Restrictive policies could undermine Nepal’s credibility, discouraging potential investors, international partners, and stakeholders. 

What we need is foresight and transparency in our laws and policies. As a citizen, we all must speak truth to power.