CIAA erred in letting off ministers, secys

With the filing of case by the CIAA against 34 police officials and two contractors in the Sudan scam, argument has raged for and against the CIAA´s charge sheet. While some have been arguing that the anti-graft body´s decision not to include erstwhile home ministers and home secretaries in the charge sheet was unjust, others counter-argue that the CIAA did a good job by filing the case, and better late than never.



Against this backdrop, Republica´s Bimal Gautam and Thira L Bhusal briefly interviewed UML leader Pradip Gyawali, who headed the probe committee formed by parliament´s State Affairs Committee to investigate the Sudan scam.[break]


What is your opinion about the CIAA´s decision not to file case against erstwhile home ministers and secretaries in the Sudan scam?



When we interrogated the police officials, we tried to find out if there was any involvement from the ministerial level, and we found that police headquarters was entirely responsible for taking the decision. But it is obvious the minister and secretary can´t remain aloof when a department under the ministry is engaged in such a huge deal. Though the Public Procurement Act entrusts police headquarters with the responsibility of planning, purchasing and making payment, the line ministry has to oversee the deal.



The then home minister and secretary failed to monitor whether a department under the ministry was functioning properly, was taking the right decision or not. It is obvious the minister and the secretary had failed to show seriousness over the matter and intervene in time. Therefore, we recommended in our report that on moral and legal grounds the then ministers and secretaries can´t be spared legal action. We had also recommended to the CIAA to probe the case in-depth but now we realize that the anti-graft body failed to do so.



Do you think such a deal is not possible without consent from the minister and secretary concerned?



It is true files related to procurements and payments don´t legally need to be forwarded to the ministry but it is ridiculous to claim that the minister and the secretary were totally in the dark about such a huge deal. On legal grounds, police headquarters is solely responsible throughout, from the procurement process to payment, but morally the minister and the secretary must be held responsible also.



When your team interrogated them, what was the answer of the ministers, secretaries and police officials about their involvement?



The ministers and secretaries denied their involvement, arguing that the file on the scam was never forwarded to them and the entire deal was undertaken by police officials.



Would you agree that had your probe found specific evidence of the involvement of ministers and secretaries in the scam, the CIAA would not have let them go scot-free?


Our report has established that some irregularities were deliberately perpetrated and it was not a general malaise. It happened due to serious negligence by the top leadership of the ministry and police officials. The irregularities seen in the deal are serious, so much so that the agreement signed with the supplier was amended nine times. They paid the supplier in advance out of ill intention. They have bought unnecessary spare parts worth Rs. 750 million. We unearthed such irregularities but we couldn´t specifically point at the minister or secretary because lawmakers are not experts in probing corruption and crime.



Are you satisfied with the CIAA charge sheet?



Though the decision of CIAA officials to file case is praiseworthy despite the fact that the political leadership has failed to even appoint CIAA commissioners, the decision has some flaws. The CIAA´s demand of equal fines for all the accused -- notwithstanding their level of involvement in the scam -- is not satisfactory. The CIAA should have sought punishment as per the level of crime. It is a serious flaw to seek equal punishment and fines for all because all of them are not equally responsible in the scam. The CIAA should have conducted a thorough investigation into the involvement of erstwhile ministers and secretaries. It made a mistake by failing to do so.

Related story

56 secys, 662 joint-secys and 848 under-secys adjusted in three...