The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed a corruption case against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and 91 others in connection with the Patanjali land scandal. The move has ignited a debate over whether the CIAA has the constitutional authority to investigate cabinet decisions, with legal experts and political analysts sharply divided.

Nepal’s party, the CPN (Unified Socialist), along with several opposition groups, has denounced the case as politically motivated. Many suspect that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli may have influenced CIAA Chief Prem Kumar Rai to target Nepal, one of Oli’s most vocal critics, under the pretense of a corruption probe. The rift between the two leaders has been widening since the party’s split in 2021

Public reaction has been swift and skeptical. From social media to teashop gossip, many see this as an attempt to weaken the Unified Socialist and lure away its lawmakers. If successful, such a maneuver could boost the CPN-UML’s numbers in the House of Representatives, potentially pushing the Nepali Congress into second place.

But the greater concern is the deepening erosion of public trust in state institutions.  This growing distrust poses a more serious threat to Nepal’s democratic order than the revival of monarchist sentiment.

Like many state institutions, the CIAA is losing legitimacy due to a flawed appointment process, selective investigations, and a deferential attitude toward the political elite—all of which compromise its constitutional autonomy. At the heart of the problem lies the method of appointing the CIAA’s leadership.

Chiefs and commissioners are often chosen based on political allegiance or their willingness to offer bribes for the position. Such practices fatally compromise the agency’s independence.

As a result, the CIAA is frequently accused of targeting “small fish” while ignoring large-scale corruption involving high-profile figures. Its track record in major cases is dismal, with many prosecutions falling apart due to poorly prepared charges at the Special Court.

Had the CIAA built a reputation for fair and rigorous investigations, the current case against Nepal might not have provoked such intense skepticism.

This isn’t just about one institution. Across the board, Nepal’s key democratic institutions are rapidly losing public confidence. The recent delay in appointing the Governor of Nepal Rastra Bank is a case in point, which was marked by indecision and political bargaining at the highest level.

Meanwhile, the judiciary’s credibility continues to decline. One controversial verdict after another has led many to question the impartiality of the courts. Just two weeks ago, the Janakpur high court acquitted former Nepali Congress lawmaker Mohammad Aftab Alam in connection with the 2008 Rautahat blast and subsequent killing of those injured. 

Despite strong testimony from legal experts, witnesses, and journalists implicating Alam, the court found him not guilty. Such rulings fuel public despair and reinforce the perception that justice in Nepal is hostage to politics and impunity. 

The executive branch fares no better. Public trust in the government is at an all-time low, driven by repeated accusations of corruption, opacity, and indifference to citizens’ concerns. One glaring example is the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and ministers to disclose their property details more than a year after the current NC–UML coalition took power.

If Nepal’s political parties are serious about defending the current system against royalist and other anti-democratic forces, they must begin by restoring faith in public institutions. That starts with overhauling the deeply flawed appointment process. Too often, constitutional bodies are staffed not by competent, independent professionals but by political loyalists and former bureaucrats with party affiliations.

These appointees remain beholden to the leaders who installed them, rendering institutions ineffective and subservient. Far from being autonomous, many constitutional bodies now operate as extensions of the executive. The judiciary is no exception.

Over the past two decades, political interference in the justice system has become so normalized that ordinary citizens can identify the political leanings of Supreme Court justices based on their past affiliations. This perceived bias has severely undermined the legitimacy of court rulings.

Both the judiciary and legislature operate in the shadow of partisan influence. Other institutions, including the Nepal Police, Nepal Army, and various regulatory agencies, are also viewed as corrupt and politicized

Because political parties remain at the center of power, the impetus for reform must come from them. Yet history shows a troubling pattern: when prominent political figures are implicated in corruption, their parties work to weaken or discredit oversight bodies. This has been the case since the early 1990s, when the CPN-UML resisted unfavorable court rulings, followed by the Nepali Congress in the 2000s.

After 2006, the Maoists and Madhes-based parties attacked the credibility of state institutions, and now, newer parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party publicly challenge investigations and court decisions. This persistent trend has done lasting damage to the credibility of Nepal’s democratic institutions.

Political parties often proclaim their commitment to democracy, but that commitment must be judged by actions—not words. True dedication to democratic values requires strengthening institutional integrity, not undermining it for short-term political gain. On this front, Nepal’s political leadership has repeatedly failed.

Public faith in the current political class is near collapse. To address this deepening crisis, Nepal urgently needs principled, accountable leadership at all levels—federal, provincial, and local. These leaders must ensure that public institutions function independently, deliver on their mandates, and operate without political interference.

Today, state institutions are widely seen as corrupt, politicized, inefficient, and disconnected from the public. If political parties genuinely wish to safeguard the political system, they must embrace a long-term, systemic reform agenda rooted in the spirit of the 2015 Constitution.

Although the Constitution enshrines the separation of powers, genuine institutional reform has yet to follow. Nepal does not need a constitutional amendment, but it does need a comprehensive review aimed at strengthening the architecture of democracy. Only then can the country’s political system hope to survive and thrive.