Kulman Ghising defends NEA’s autonomy against ministerial overreach

KATHMANDU: Kulman Ghising, Executive Director of the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), has lodged a formal dissent against a decision by the NEA Board of Directors to impose the financial burden of an inquiry committee, formed by the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation, onto the NEA. The committee was established to investigate the unpaid electricity dues of industries using dedicated and trunkline services while bypassing legal procedures.

At a board meeting on December 19, chaired by Energy Minister Deepak Khadka, the proposal to transfer the financial responsibility of the committee to NEA was tabled. Ghising submitted a written note of dissent during the signing of the meeting’s minutes on Tuesday.

Controversial Committee Formation

The committee, led by Prof. Dr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, was formed on November 19 by Minister Khadka to collect and verify data regarding the outstanding dues of industries. The committee includes former NEA employee Shriramraj Pandey and chartered accountant Sujan Kumar Kafle as members. Critics argue the committee’s formation lacks legal grounds, pointing out that the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 2017, assigns the authority to audit and monitor NEA activities exclusively to the Electricity Regulatory Commission (ERC).

The committee’s operations, set up in a government building in Babarmahal, will incur substantial costs, including salaries, allowances, and logistical support. These expenses, estimated to exceed NPR 10 million, are to be borne by the NEA as per the board’s decision.

Legal and Financial Concerns

Ghising has opposed the decision, arguing that the NEA’s bills have previously been validated by parliamentary committees, courts, and the Office of the Auditor General. Reinvestigating such matters through a legally questionable committee undermines established processes, he stated.

He also questioned the legitimacy of the committee, noting that a writ challenging its legality is currently under review by the Supreme Court. “If the court declares the committee unconstitutional in the future, NEA could face legal and financial repercussions,” he warned.

Ministerial Influence and Board Dynamics

Minister Khadka had appointed two new board members, Dr. Balbahadur Parajuli and Laxman KC, after the tenure of two previous members expired. The proposal to transfer the committee’s financial burden to NEA was introduced at their first board meeting. Ghising’s dissent highlighted the minister’s influence in driving decisions favorable to industrial defaulters.

Out of eight board members, only five, including Minister Khadka, signed the meeting’s minutes. However, due to Ghising’s dissent, his signature is not counted for majority approval. Two members refrained from signing, and the Revenue Secretary, absent during the meeting, was ineligible to sign.

Implications for NEA

The NEA board’s decision mandates the utility to provide office space, staff, vehicles, and financial support for the inquiry committee. This move raises concerns about the misuse of NEA resources and potential conflicts with legal provisions.

Former Secretary Bimal Wagle, a governance expert, remarked, “The NEA and the ministry must work in harmony. While dissent is a part of governance, decisions made by majority should be respected.”

Calls for Legal Clarity

The Supreme Court is yet to rule on the legality of the committee. Critics, including Ghising, suggest that any inquiries into unpaid dues should be conducted through the ERC, the body legally empowered to oversee such matters. They argue that bypassing established legal frameworks not only creates financial liabilities for NEA but also risks setting a precedent for arbitrary decision-making.

As the dispute unfolds, stakeholders await the Supreme Court’s decision, which could determine the future of the inquiry committee and its implications for the NEA.