Corruption Case Filed Against Former Minister and Officials in Nepals Pokhara Airport Scandal

May 8, 2026

Kathmandu, May 8: Nepal’s anti-corruption agency has filed a corruption case in a special court. The case is linked to the construction of Pokhara International Airport in western Nepal. It implicates a former minister, current and former senior officials, a Chinese company, and several of its representatives.

This marks the fourth time in the past 18 months that the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has initiated cases against various individuals involved in this multi-million dollar project, which was funded by China.

So far, the airport has largely remained a “showpiece project,” as there are no regular flights operating from it. The project received $215.96 million in funding from the Export-Import Bank of China and was constructed by China CAMC Engineering Company Limited.

The CIAA stated that it has filed cases against former Finance Minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, several former government secretaries, joint secretaries, and other officials. In total, 11 government officials are accused. Karki is the sixth former minister implicated in the Pokhara Airport scandal. Previous ministers named include Bhim Acharya, Ram Kumar Shrestha, Deepak Amatya, Ram Sharan Mahat, and Post Bahadur Bogati, the latter of whom has since passed away.

Additionally, the Chinese contractor and its officials, Chairman Wang Bo and Project Manager Yang Zhigang, are accused of facilitating corruption with government officials.

The anti-corruption agency claims that government officials and China CAMC Engineering Company Limited colluded to grant tax and customs duty exemptions in violation of regulations.

It is alleged that this resulted in a loss of approximately 3.62 billion Nepalese Rupees to the government. The CIAA noted that the contract between the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal and the Chinese company already included tax and customs duties, which the company was supposed to pay. However, a separate agreement later exempted the company from these payments, allowing it to gain “double benefits.”