Sudurpaschim budget probe faces credibility questions as ruling coalition disputes committee formation

Dhangadhi: The Sudurpaschim Provincial Government, after acknowledging errors in its budget, is preparing to revise it. Both the Council of Ministers and the Provincial Assembly have decided to form a parliamentary committee to investigate the budget and introduce a supplementary budget based on its findings. Accordingly, the government has begun the process of forming the committee. However, disagreements have emerged within the ruling coalition even before the committee has been established.

The ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and the CPN-UML have finalized their nominees for the parliamentary committee. The CPN-UML plans to nominate its parliamentary party leader and former Chief Minister Rajendra Singh Rawal, along with Chief Whip and former Minister Surendra Bahadur Pal. Meanwhile, the NCP has recommended former Minister Naresh Kumar Shahi, Kailash Chaudhary, and Laxmi BK.

Rajendra Singh Rawal is reportedly being considered for the committee’s leadership. However, as a supporter of the current budget, his possible appointment has raised questions about the impartiality of a committee tasked with investigating it. Concerns have emerged that the inquiry could be used to legitimize or “whitewash” the controversial budget rather than identify its irregularities.

Speaker Bhim Bahadur Bhandari had earlier announced the formation of a seven-member parliamentary committee based on party representation before the budget was passed. However, the main opposition Nepali Congress and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) have firmly refused to participate. They argue that they were not consulted either during the budget approval process or while the committee’s terms of reference were being determined.

Discontent over the committee’s formation extends beyond the opposition. Lawmakers from the ruling NCP, which leads the provincial government, have also expressed dissatisfaction. NCP lawmaker Akkal Rawal said the authority to investigate the budget rests with the Provincial Assembly, not the government.

In a social media post, Rawal criticized the government’s role, arguing that it could not resolve a problem by attempting to treat itself. “A government that is itself ‘ill’ cannot cure itself. If the government becomes incapacitated, it is the House [Legislature] that must provide the treatment,” he wrote.

Rawal further alleged that the committee members were selected through a private gathering of those in power rather than a formal meeting of the ruling parties at the Chief Minister’s Office. He said the government’s attempt to handpick members for a committee that should have been formed through consultations among all parties under the Speaker’s leadership had raised doubts about the investigation’s impartiality.

Describing the process as an attempt to cover up flaws in the budget, Rawal wrote, “It seems there was an intense discussion on whom to include in order to ‘purify’ the budget—as if bathing it in milk and sprinkling it with sacred cow urine.” He added, “They are trying to wash away the ‘sins’ of the original budget by setting up this committee. That is absolutely unacceptable.”

Given that the government has already acknowledged errors in the budget, Rawal warned against attempts to legitimize the flawed budget through what he described as a merely procedural investigation.

The Sudurpaschim Provincial Government’s budget for the current fiscal year 2083/84 was presented to the Provincial Assembly nearly three months after the fiscal year had begun. Minister for Economic Affairs Chakra Bahadur Malla presented a budget totaling Rs 37.70 billion.

Immediately after the budget was announced, lawmakers from within the ruling coalition raised concerns, alleging that a “commission game” involving intermediaries had taken place. During deliberations in the Provincial Assembly, the government also acknowledged that errors had occurred. Responding to questions, Minister Malla admitted that he was unaware of how certain projects had been included in the budget.

“We set out to create a ‘Dudh Pokhari’ (milk pond), but it turned into a ‘Pani Pokhari’ (ordinary water pond),” he remarked.

Following strong opposition from within the ruling coalition, lawmakers from the ruling parties agreed to pass the budget on the condition that a parliamentary investigation would be conducted and a supplementary budget introduced based on its findings.

However, disagreements over the formation of the investigation committee have now raised further questions about whether the concerns surrounding the budget will be addressed through an impartial inquiry.