Many parliamentarians have appointed personal secretaries who do not fulfill the qualifications mandated by law. This has not just flouted the rule of law but also misused the state’s investment.
Makar Shrestha | CIJ Nepal
Bishnu Prasad Sapkota of Sindhupalchok district is the personal secretary of National Assembly Chairperson Narayan Prasad Dahal. He receives a salary and perks equivalent to that of a joint secretary from the Parliament Secretariat. He has also received a government vehicle and a driver named Rajendra Shrestha.
Moreover, he also recently received a ‘budget allowance’ equivalent to a month’s salary like the permanent officials of the Parliament Secretariat. But he has an academic qualification of just a 10+2 graduate. He admitted it to the CIJ.
Tej Prakash Bhattarai, personal secretary of the Speaker of House of Representatives Devraj Ghimire, is also getting perks and benefits like Sapkota. Bhattarai has received a vehicle, a driver, Anil Dhakal, and fuel, and also the budget allowance, which goes against the rule. According to the Parliament Secretariat, Bhattarai’s academic qualification is bachelor’s. While for a position equivalent to a joint secretary, a master’s degree is mandated.
“The Parliament Secretariat hasn’t demanded my academic qualifications yet,” Bhattarai said. “And I haven’t submitted it either. I don’t know who provided you with the details. There are several positions that are political appointments. They have their own provisions.”
According to the 2073 BS Act related to salaries and benefits of officials and members of Parliament, officials at personal secretariat receive salaries of the beginning scale. Only the permanent officials of Parliament Secretariat and marshals get the budget allowance equivalent to salary for one month once the Parliament endorses the budget.
But the Parliament Secretariat has been providing benefits, including allowances, vehicles, fuel and driver, to personal secretaries like that to permanent officials. Not just that, it also provides them extra allowances, inflation allowance, and lunch allowance. The secretariat has already sent the allowances to 28 officials employed at the offices of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, National Assembly Chairperson and deputy chair.
The Act’s Schedule 2 states that the Speaker of Parliament and Chairperson of National Assembly can keep one personal secretary, whose position is equivalent to that of a joint secretary, one official equivalent to under secretary, and one official equivalent to a section officer.
Likewise, the Deputy Speaker, deputy chair of National Assembly, opposition leader of National Assembly, and the parliamentary party leader and chief whip of ruling party can keep a personal secretary whose position is equivalent to that of an under secretary of the Nepal government. Likewise, chief whip of the main opposition party, chairs of various parliamentary committees, and whips can also keep a personal secretary whose position is equivalent to that of an under secretary.
While the salaries and benefits are distributed according to this Act, the Parliament Secretariat has not paid attention to the qualifications of the personal secretaries employed by 18 office bearers. The CIJ learned through right to information that several personal secretaries had only passed +2 level and others only grade 10, while employees equivalent to under secretary should have passed master’s level.
The Civil Service Act’s Clause 7 Sub-clause 16 mentions the qualifications required for officials employed at various levels. The joint secretaries and under secretaries should be master’s graduates and should have worked at public offices for a certain period of time. The section officers should have passed bachelor’s level. The Act also mentions that employees should have studied the subjects related to the sector they are employed at.
Lawmakers’ arbitrary ways
The Act has made a provision for the Members of Parliament to employ a section officer-level personal secretary. But 92 such personal secretaries, employed by 16 National Assembly members and 76 House of Representatives members, do not meet the criteria. Several have only passed grade 8. But they nonetheless receive salaries and benefits equivalent to a section officer.
The Secretariat keeps a record of personal secretaries according to information provided by MPs and officials. While it asks personal secretaries to fill up a form regarding their qualification and personal details, it doesn’t fact-check them. “If anyone who has studied only up to the primary level writes that they are a bachelor’s graduate, we are obliged to record that,” an official of the Secretariat said.
Ekram Giri, spokesperson of the Secretariat, says that since the Act hasn’t made qualifications mandatory while appointing personal secretaries, his office hasn’t been able to strictly enforce the law. “The Act doesn’t mention that one has to present a certificate to the Secretariat and take a test to become a personal secretariat, that’s why we are unable to make it mandatory,” Giri said.
But Umesh Mainali, former chief of the Public Service Commission, disagrees with Giri. Since the Act has made a provision to provide salaries and benefits according to one’s position, it’s not necessary to mention qualifications. “The Act hasn’t said that anyone with any qualification can become a personal secretary,” Mainali said.
Auditor General Toyam Raya also says that since the Act has mentioned the salaries and perks to be provided to personal secretaries equivalent to civil servants, it should be done likewise. “Either it shouldn’t have stated the personal secretary should have qualifications equivalent to a section office, or the due procedure should be followed,” he said. He suggested that officials at Parliament Secretariat should be appointed based on certain rules and qualifications.
The 14 chairs of various parliamentary committees are mandated to keep an under secretary-level personal secretary. But seven of them have employed personal secretaries who do not meet the criteria. Meanwhile, chairs of three of four committees in the National Assembly have employed personal secretaries who do not meet the criteria.
Of the officials who have employed personal secretaries who do not meet the criteria are Speaker Devraj Ghimire, National Assembly chair Narayan Dahal, Nepali Congress parliamentary leader at National Assembly Krishna Prasad Sitaula, UML chief whip Mahesh Kumar Bartaula, and CPN (Maoist Centre) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
Other such officials are Maoist whip Rupa Soshi Chaudhary, Maoist chief whip at National Assembly Gopi Bahadur Achhami, Rastriya Prajatantra Party chief whip Gyan Bahadur Shahi, chair of parliamentary Finance Committee Santosh Chalise, chair of Industry, Commerce, Labour and Consumer Welfare Committee Abdul Khana, and chair of Law Committee Bimala Subedi.
Other parliamentarians who have employed personal secretaries who do not fulfill the criteria include Ramhari Khatiwada, Deepak Bahadur Singh, Ammar Bahadur Thapa, Rishikesh Pokharel, Jayanti Devi Rai, Kamala Devi Panta, and Maya Prasad Sharma.
Officials at Parliament say that the Secretariat has turned a blind eye to this open disregard of law to please the leaders. “We have necessitated that the personal secretaries fill up the form with their qualifications but that hasn’t happened,” an official at Parliament Secretariat says.
Personal secretaries are employed so they help parliamentarians effectively carry out their duties. Personal secretaries help manage the Secretariat, investigate various issues and draft reports, write draft bills and help research, stay in contact with representatives from electoral districts and provide suggestions. Hence, they are required to possess the qualifications of a section officer.
“Personal secretaries should maintain contact and coordinate with the Parliament Secretariat,” Giri, the spokesperson, said. “The Act has provisioned personal secretaries with qualifications of a section officer so that the work of parliamentarians is effective and result-oriented.”
Weaknesses pointed out by the Auditor General
The Office of the Auditor General has said in its reports that personal secretaries who were recruited without qualifications or standards received government pay are in violation of the rules.
According to the Office’s 61st annual report, “The stipulation is that the officeholders and members shall receive employee benefits for their private secretariat. Before making appointments, the educational requirements and appointment procedures should be established.”
The Office has stated that a total of 436 personnel for office holders and members of Parliament (310 officer-level and 126 assistant-level) were appointed without standards or qualifications. Annually, Rs. 179.2 million is spent on their maintenance.
Mainali, the former chairperson of the Public Service Commission, emphasised the Office’s recommendations and says that standards should be established for these personnels’ qualifications.
Auditor General Toyam Raya claims that his office identifies weaknesses, but implementation is the responsibility of Parliament. He asserts, “The Accounts Committee of the Parliament should gaze upon its own mistakes as it inspects the weaknesses of other institutions.” However, the Parliament Secretariat has turned a blind eye to the issue of creating appointment and qualification standards, although the Office of the Auditor General has been repeating itself for three years in a row.
A grade-8-educated section officer!
Mahindra Raya Yadav is a parliamentarian from Sarlahi-2. He has studied till S.L.C. To make his parliamentarian duties effective and secretariat orderly, he has appointed Satya Prakash Yadav as his personal secretary, who has studied till the eighth standard.
The Federal Parliament Secretariat provides Yadav salary and benefits on par with a gazetted third-class officer. “Indeed, I’ve only studied till grade 8,” says Satya Prakash, who happens to be the nephew of Mahindra Raya. “I don’t need to do much. My uncle does everything himself.” Raya is a frequent absentee in Parliament. He is also a member of the Committee on Education, Health, and Information Technology but has not participated in any of the discussions over the most recent School Education Bill.
Rajendra K.C., elected from Kathmandu’s constituency 10, holds a master’s in economics. Binod Gurung, an employee in K.C.’s secretariat, has only an S.L.C. education. Gurung claims that, although he has completed grade 12, he does not have the necessary certificate. He says, “My qualification is till S.L.C., and I don’t have a 10+2 certificate.”
As reported by the Parliament Secretariat, 15 parliamentarians have personal secretaries who have only completed grade 10: Asma Kumari Chaudhari, Ishwar Bahadur Rijal, Ganga Karki, Krishna Kumar Shrestha, Dayal Bahadur Shahi, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Dhruva Bahadur Pradhan, Purna Bahadur Gharti, Bina Kumari Thanait, Mangal Prasad Gupta, Rajendra Kumar K.C., Ram Krishna Yadav, Shobha Gyawali, and Sushila Shirpali Thakuri.
Sabitri Malla, a National Assembly member, has also appointed a personal secretary who has only finished grade ten. The Parliament Secretariat has been paying officer-level salaries to personal secretaries for 65 members of the House of Representatives and 18 members of the National Assembly, all of whom have only finished grade 12.
In the House of Representatives, twenty-three members of the Congress, twenty of the UML, seventeen of the Maoist, four of the RSP, one of the Unified Socialist, seven of the RPP, two of the People’s Socialist, three of the Janamat, and two of the People’s Freedom Party compensate officer-level benefits to their unqualified personal secretaries.
Likewise, in the National Assembly, one member of the JSP, three of the CPN Unified Socialist, one of the UML, eight of the Maoist, three of the Congress, and one of the Democratic Socialist Party compensate officer-level benefits to their unqualified personal secretaries.
Spectacle in the Parliament
The “E-Commerce” bill was being discussed at a House of Representatives meeting on April 1, 2024. Kiran Kumar Shah, a UML MP from Rautahat-2, mistook the bill aimed at regulating online enterprises with electricity trading and went on to explain energy trading.
During the meeting, he said, “The measure will allow private enterprises to participate in electricity trading, leading to increased competition and production. Most likely, Nepalis will be able to get electricity at low prices.”
On July 12, 2023, the same bill was discussed in the National Assembly. The discussion was rendered futile when UML members Bhagwati Neupane, Tulasa Kumari Dahal, Bimala Ghimire, Congress members Jitendra Narayan Dev, and then-Minister of Industry Ramesh Rijal spoke about the bill, equating it with electricity trading.
Naagina Yadav, a Congress MP, even sounded the death knell for someone who was still alive. She brought the government’s attention to continued “terrorist activities” in Terai during a House of Representatives hearing on June 19, 2024, while speaking in emergency time. She went on to use the identity of a Gaushala, Mahottari resident whose kid was “shot dead” and complained that the police had refused to apprehend the perpetrators despite filing an FIR.
However, another MP, Mahendra Raya, informed the House that the individual declared deceased by Naagina was just hurt in the incident. He stated, “There was no death, just an injury. They are being treated at the Teaching Hospital.” The Speaker of the House subsequently issued an instruction to erase MP Naagina’s inaccurate statement.
Surya Prasad Dhakal, the UML MP for Banke-2, even forgot about the amendment he had proposed to the Education Bill. On July 24, this year, during a meeting of the House Committee on Education, Health, and Information Technology, he attempted to shift blame by accusing the Committee of misplacing his amendment request. “I can’t remember what I submitted,” he answered. “I can’t find it in the bill right now.” As is customary, the MP filing the amendment request must justify the rationale for the request, which is precisely why he was attending the meeting.
An employee of the Parliament’s bill department accused certain MPs of using their personal secretaries as middlemen. “They are unaware of their responsibilities. To them, research is a far cry,” they said, “They sign whatever amendments special interest groups prepare for them, so they have no idea what the amendments are about.”
On June 6, this year, the House of Representatives debated the Allocation Bill. Rajendra K.C., a Congress MP, began to elaborate on the subject of security printing. “We are discussing the Security Printing bill, which has originated in the National Assembly,” he stated, eliciting a laugh from the other MPs. The Speaker of the House then reminded K.C. that the discussion was on a separate measure. K.C. fell silent and left the rostrum.
If the MPs’ personal secretaries were responsible and qualified, they would be advised on the topics to address, the current debate in the House, and the available research on the subject. The MPs would not have to be the subject of ridicule, nor would deliberations in Parliament be rendered pointless.
Anjan Shakya, a member of the National Assembly, claims that assigning qualified workers to her secretariat facilitated and contextualized her oration. She has appointed Sushila Shrestha as her personal secretary, a lawyer with a master’s degree. Shrestha gathers the relevant facts and figures, researches the bills, and consults experts before informing MP Shakya of the situation.
“She has not only managed my secretariat but has also supported me through the parliamentary process,” MP Shakya adds. “As a practicing lawyer, she advises me on the nature of the bills and modifications required on specific dimensions. We will conclude after talking with specialists.”
Madhav Sapkota, an MP for the Maoist Centre from Sindhupalchok, agrees that the House meetings become worthwhile when he prepares with the assistance of his secretariat. “The secretariat prepares a file for me if there is a new issue to be raised in the Parliament,” he states. “No one can object when I prepare accordingly.” Sapkota also claims that he seeks help from law students before discussing the principles of a bill.
RSP MP Nisha Dangi even ran an ad seeking people for the position of personal secretary. She has three interns and a personal secretary with a bachelor’s degree in law. She has also issued her report card, mobilizing her secretariat, in which she outlines her progress in Parliament. She says, “I’ve experienced that a qualified secretariat helps me decide what to speak in the House, in archiving, and which amendments to file.”
Onus on Parliament to hold personal secretaries to account
The Parliamentary Secretariat also has the responsibility to hold personal secretaries accountable, which is why new personal secretaries should be trained. The personal secretaries’ attendance should be recorded on the days that Parliament and its committees meet.
- Mukunda Sharma, former-secretary, Parliamentary Secretariat
There are several practices for assigning personal secretaries to MPs around the world. In Nepal, the government is mandated to pay the personal secretary’s salary in recognition of the necessity of having a qualified personal secretary to assist MPs in their duties.
An MP is expected to attend Parliament and Committee meetings, analyze documents and offer feedback, and interact and coordinate with their constituency and voters, among other responsibilities. They must also attend bill discussions and file for necessary amendments.
The personal secretary’s role is to assist with these tasks by gathering information, doing research, and presenting coherent briefs for legislative deliberations.
Our MPs come from diverse backgrounds. Not everyone possesses the requisite skills in all fields. Even skilled and diligent MPs have limitations, which is why officer-level personal secretaries are on hand to supplement their capabilities.
However, several MPs allegedly use family members and close party members as personal secretaries. The personal secretary position was never intended to be offered to sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, or nephews. The objective was to improve an MP’s abilities and efficiency.
A personal secretary must be well-educated, capable of conducting thorough research, and have insight into law and politics. Unfortunately, the reality differs from what the Act had envisioned. Many MPs have taken advantage of this position for personal gain. It is not advisable to appoint family or close friends, even if they are educated. This is not how the secretariat becomes more efficient, nor will it encourage serious debate in Parliament.
If an MP’s personal secretary is paid at the officer level, they should have a bachelor’s degree, be able to use a computer, and be familiar with parliamentary procedure. One must be capable of performing the duties for which one is compensated. The presentations of MPs with qualified personal secretaries vs those with relatives appear to be incomparable.
Personal secretaries of officeholders are entitled to wages on par with joint secretaries and deputy secretaries under the Act. It is implied that individuals with the necessary qualifications should be appointed. It is also general knowledge that the job required and the remuneration supplied automatically determine the credentials. Unfortunately, officeholders do not understand such a simple concept.
What’s the way forward?
All of the MPs have used government benefits. MPs who are now maintaining unqualified personnel should promptly self-correct. This is also an ethical issue; thus, before inquiries start being made, MPs should correct themselves.
If the Act’s spirit and requirements are not being followed, it should be amended to clarify them. Also, the Parliamentary Secretariat simply keeps track of the personal secretary’s name and the MPs they assist. An identity card is also issued based on the same information. This is insufficient; therefore, appointment standards and credentials must be established.
The Parliamentary Secretariat also has the responsibility to hold secretaries accountable, which is why new secretaries should be trained. The secretaries’ attendance should be recorded on the days that Parliament and its committees meet.
When personal secretaries begin to attend sessions regularly, they will be able to give over documents to MPs that were previously pigeonholed. If an MP complains that they did not receive the document, it will be easy to determine whether the personal secretary checked in with the Parliamentary Secretariat. This can help keep the Secretariat organized.
(Based on interviews between journalist Makar Shrestha and Sharma, the former secretary of the Parliamentary Secretariat.)
