Taking advantage of a legal loophole, the KP Sharma Oli-led administration—formed through a coalition of the two largest parties in Parliament—has not yet made public the property details of its cabinet members.

Oli returned to Baluwatar in mid-July 2024, marking his fourth term as Nepal’s executive head.

A key provision concerning property disclosures is outlined in Section 31(a) of the ‘Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act, 1991’. This section mandates that public officeholders submit their property details within 60 days of assuming office and resubmit updated information annually within two months of the fiscal year’s end.

The law requires disclosure of all properties and income sources held under the names of officeholders and their family members.

Sub-section 1 of Section 31(a) states: “A person holding a public post from the date of holding of such post, and a person who is in the public post from the date of commencement of this Section shall submit an updated statement of their property which is in their own or in their relatives name with source of it and proof thereof within sixty days and each year within sixty days of the end of every fiscal year before the body or authority prescribed by the Government of Nepal by a notification in the Nepal Gazette.”

Public officials are expected to file their declarations through designated institutions to the National Vigilance Centre.

Those who fail to submit their property details within 60 days face a fine of Rs 5,000 and are required to submit the information within an additional 30 days. If the CIAA suspects illicit enrichment, it can initiate an investigation.

According to Sub-section (2): “In case a person holding a public post fails to submit a statement of his/her property within the stipulated sixty days pursuant to Sub-Section (1), the Commission shall impose a fine of five thousand Rupees and ask to submit the statement of the property within the next 30 days. If again the person holding the public post does not submit the statement of property within the extended timeframe, the body or authority under Sub-Section (1) may initiate an investigation against him/her by assuming that the property in his/her own name or his/her family member's name is illegal.”

However, the law also allows for these declarations to remain confidential, a clause that many have used to avoid public scrutiny. 

Sub-section (3) explicitly states: “The property statement so submitted under this Section shall be kept confidential.

Provided that, the statement may be given to the concerned authority on demand in the course of initiating investigation and inquiry under this Act.”

Recent governments have increasingly relied on this provision, disregarding rising demands for transparency and public accountability.

Historically, most administrations voluntarily disclosed such information, setting a precedent for transparency, officials say.

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002 and the CIAA Act, 1991, submitted property records must be forwarded from District Coordination Committees, rural municipalities, municipalities, and provincial governments to the respective Chief Ministers for proper handling.

Officials at the National Vigilance Centre affirm that while submitting property details is mandatory, there is no explicit requirement for public disclosure—unless a sitting government opts for it.

According to a source at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, although most ministers, including the Prime Minister, have submitted their declarations, they remain confidential due to their collective unwillingness to make them public.

“Though making such details public has become the norm over the years, there is no binding legal requirement to make such details public,” said a senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office. “This time, the details have not been published because the Prime Minister and the ministers are unwilling.”

In May 2024, the Cabinet under then-Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal decided to publish property details of all ministers. Nearly all ministers in his cabinet complied and made their declarations public.

That move, however, was hardly the result of Dahal’s commitment for transparency, but was in response to pressure from the newly formed parliamentary force, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which strongly advocated for public disclosure of assets.

Four RSP ministers formally requested the Prime Minister's Office to release their property details.

Previous administrations led by Oli and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba also opted against public disclosure.

However, following the 2017 elections, the Oli administration had disclosed cabinet members’ property details. The disclosures, however, led to public scrutiny and criticism over some reported assets. Since then, the trend of withholding information has re-emerged.

Khem Raj Regmi, former president of Transparency International Nepal and a former government secretary, noted that the practice of public asset disclosure dates back to the tenure of the late Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai.

Recent governments, however, appear to be reversing this tradition.
“Those in power lack transparency, accountability, and integrity,” said Regmi. “They have started exploiting a loophole in the existing legal provision.”

“Public disclosure of such information is vital to build trust and prevent misuse of public office,” Regmi added.

How Much Property Did Prime Minister Oli Have?

After the 2017 elections, the Oli-led government disclosed cabinet ministers’ property details. According to the official disclosure, most of Prime Minister Oli’s immovable assets were registered under his wife, Radhika Shakya.

Two three-storey houses on one and a half ropani of land in Balkot, Suryabinayak Municipality-2, Bhaktapur, were listed under Shakya’s name. She also owned 10 kattha of land in Prithvinagar, Jhapa.

Financial disclosures revealed that Shakya held Rs 400,000 in Machhapuchchhre Bank, Rs 600,000 in Prabhu Bank, and Rs 2.5 million in savings bonds.

Oli, on the other hand, had Rs 4.2 million deposited in Everest Bank, with the income source cited as salary and allowances. Most of the property in his wife’s name was described as self-earned in the report.

The disclosure also noted that Oli possessed 17 tola (nearly 200 gram) of gold jewelry and did not own a personal vehicle.