Corruption Allegations at Pokhara Airport Reveal Deeper Fault Lines in Nepal–China Infrastructure Ties

The unfolding controversy surrounding the Chinese contractor for Pokhara Regional International Airport (PRIA) has laid bare troubling signs of corruption, diplomatic overreach, and institutional negligence at the intersection of Nepal’s infrastructure development and foreign relations.

A public statement by the Chinese construction company—reportedly published in Nepal’s state-owned Gorkhapatra daily—rejected the findings of a parliamentary subcommittee report alleging financial and procedural irregularities in the construction of the PRIA. This direct challenge to the authority of Nepal’s sovereign legislature, especially through a government-funded media outlet, has triggered national outrage. Lawmakers have rightly called it an affront not only to parliamentary dignity but also to Nepal’s constitutional order.

MP Manish Jha of the Rastriya Swatantra Party criticized the Gorkhapatra’s complicity in publishing the foreign firm’s statement, questioning whether public funds should support a platform used to undermine Nepal’s own democratic institutions. His criticism reflects broader concerns that Nepal’s media and bureaucracy may be inadvertently—or deliberately—enabling foreign influence at the cost of national accountability.

The PRIA, constructed with a Rs 22 billion loan from China’s Exim Bank, was inaugurated in January 2023. Despite its official opening, it has remained largely non-functional, with no regular international flights—raising questions about the project’s feasibility and intent from the outset.

The subcommittee report, now endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), asserts that corruption was embedded in the project from the contract phase itself. Senior Nepali Congress leader Arjun Narsingh KC estimated at least Rs 10 billion in irregularities. He argued that the deal’s lack of transparency—particularly the awarding of contracts without competitive bidding—demands not just scrutiny, but accountability.

The report is now being forwarded to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), a rare but critical move acknowledging that this is no longer a mere political dispute—it is a legal and systemic one.

Though the CIAA will now investigate, political disunity threatens to weaken the impact of these efforts. Even within the ruling coalition and the main opposition, conflicting voices have emerged. CPN-UML lawmaker and former Minister for Tourism Yogesh Bhattarai—himself associated with the airport’s development—raised objections to the report’s conclusions, despite agreeing to cooperate with investigations. His reluctance highlights a broader pattern in Nepal’s political culture, where individual interests and party lines often override collective responsibility.

Meanwhile, Rajendra Lingden, coordinator of the subcommittee and a member of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, maintained that the report was apolitical and evidence-based. This assurance may be critical to counter accusations that the findings were motivated by factional or nationalist sentiments rather than empirical irregularities.

At its core, the Pokhara Airport case is not merely about procurement corruption or bureaucratic inefficiency—it is emblematic of a deeper malaise in Nepal’s foreign investment model, particularly with China. Under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) umbrella, several large-scale projects in Nepal have been advanced without adequate due diligence, oversight, or public consultation. The PRIA case is a cautionary tale of what happens when infrastructure diplomacy is prioritized over institutional integrity.

The Chinese contractor’s rebuttal—labeling the parliamentary report “unauthorized” and riddled with “factual errors”—also hints at the kind of diplomatic assertiveness, if not arrogance, that has become a feature of China’s engagement in South Asia. This goes beyond technical disagreement; it signals a willingness to interfere in domestic governance structures, a red flag for Nepal’s sovereignty.

The PRIA investigation is a test not just of anti-corruption enforcement, but of the Nepalese state’s ability to hold foreign entities accountable within its legal framework. If the CIAA fails to act decisively or the process is politicized, it may set a precedent of impunity for future foreign-led infrastructure projects.

To prevent this, Nepal’s political leadership, civil society, and media must assert transparency, legal integrity, and parliamentary sovereignty as non-negotiable principles in all foreign agreements—especially those with nations wielding disproportionate geopolitical leverage. The scandal surrounding PRIA is a sobering reminder that national development, if divorced from democratic oversight, risks becoming a Trojan horse for long-term dependency and dysfunction.