Table of Contents▼
There is a version of Nepal's reform story that focuses entirely on legislation — which acts need to be passed, which regulations need to be amended, which budget lines need to be funded.
That version is incomplete.
Legislation is a necessary condition for reform. It is not a sufficient one. The Securities Act can grant SEBON enforcement powers. Those powers are only exercised if the people running SEBON know how to use them, have the institutional authority to use them, and were appointed because they could deliver those outcomes — not because they were the politically acceptable candidate from the right coalition partner's network.
The RSP Bacha Patra 2082 commits to merit-based appointments in public institutions and good governance as its first priority. Budget 2083/84 flows from that commitment. This article makes the case, with specificity and without assigning blame to individuals, for why this single reform is the prerequisite for every other reform in the package.
The Pattern Nepal Has Lived With
To understand why merit-based appointments matter, it helps to understand what the alternative has cost.
The SEBON chairperson position was vacant from January 5 to November 25, 2024 — nearly eleven months. In that period, Nepal's capital market regulator operated without permanent leadership. Policy decisions that required board authority were deferred. The NEPSE restructuring study, the infrastructure bond framework discussions, the institutional investor mandate expansion — all of these needed a functioning SEBON board to move forward.
The vacancy was not caused by a shortage of qualified candidates. Nineteen individuals applied. Five were shortlisted. The process stalled because the ruling coalition partners — Nepali Congress and CPN-UML — could not agree on which side should get the appointment.
A regulatory body that operates for eleven months without permanent leadership is not a regulatory body that can deliver structural reform. The reform agenda does not pause while the appointment process works through its political logic.
The NRB Governor appointment in May 2025 followed a similar pattern. The position became vacant on April 25. The legal provision requires the appointment to be made at least one month before the vacancy occurs. It was resolved 44 days after the vacancy — through direct negotiation between the Prime Minister and the Nepali Congress president.
The NRB Act, 2058 explicitly prohibits political party members from serving as Governor. The appointment process required political party consensus to resolve. Both of these things were simultaneously true. The outcome was a credentialed economist with the academic and professional qualifications the role demands — but the process revealed the distance between the statutory framework and the operational reality.
Why This Is a Reform Problem, Not a Governance Philosophy
This is not an argument about governance philosophy. It is a structural analysis of why reforms fail.
Consider the chain of events required for a single reform — say, the introduction of intraday trading — to actually reach the market:
SEBON must draft the intraday trading framework, which requires its legal and technical team to develop regulations citing the Securities Act. The framework must be reviewed by the SEBON board and approved. It must then be published for public comment, revised, and gazetted. Simultaneously, SEBON must direct CDSC to upgrade its clearing system, which requires a separate technical process. SEBON must also coordinate with NRB on broker capital adequacy implications.
Every step in this chain requires institutional leadership with the technical depth to make good decisions quickly, the authority to move without political referral for each action, and the inter-institutional relationships to coordinate with NRB, NEPSE, and CDSC without jurisdictional friction.
A chairperson appointed because they were the politically acceptable candidate from the right coalition partner is not inherently incapable of these things. But their legitimacy within the institution — their ability to direct the technical staff, to push back on MoF interference, to build the inter-agency relationships that reform requires — is structurally weakened by the nature of the appointment.
The quality of a regulatory reform is bounded by the quality of the people implementing it. Legislation sets the ceiling. Institutional leadership determines how close to that ceiling the outcome reaches.
What the India SEBI Experience Tells Us
The closest relevant comparison to Nepal's current situation is India's securities market reform in the 1990s.
Before 1992, India's capital market was regulated by the Controller of Capital Issues under the Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 — a framework described by economists as fragmented, inadequate, and unable to address a growing market's complexity. SEBI existed as a non-statutory body without enforcement powers, reporting to the Ministry of Finance.
Two things changed simultaneously in 1992. First, the Harshad Mehta scam exposed the full cost of regulatory weakness to the Indian public — creating political pressure for genuine reform. Second, the SEBI Act 1992 gave SEBI statutory powers, financial autonomy, and a governance structure that separated its board from direct Ministry of Finance control while maintaining coordination through representation.
Under Chairman G.V. Ramakrishna — appointed on the strength of his Reserve Bank of India credentials, not his political connections — SEBI moved immediately. Within months of gaining statutory powers, SEBI issued guidelines permitting Foreign Institutional Investors to enter Indian markets. Within three years, the number of registered FIIs grew from zero to 439.
The reforms that followed over the next decade — dematerialization of securities, T+2 settlement cycles, corporate governance norms, mutual fund regulations — were all built on the foundation of an institution that was led by people appointed to do the job, not to represent a political interest.
India's capital market transformation was not primarily a legislative achievement. It was an institutional achievement. The legislation gave SEBI the authority. The leadership quality determined what SEBI did with it.
Nepal's situation in 2026 is analogous to India's in 1992 in several important ways: a reform-minded government with strong parliamentary backing, a reform agenda that is technically sound, and a capital market that is ready to develop if the regulatory institution can lead it.
The variable that determined the India outcome was institutional leadership quality. That variable is equally determinative in Nepal's case.
What SEBON's Board Structure Actually Looks Like
Understanding why merit-based appointments matter requires understanding how Nepal's regulatory boards are currently constituted.
SEBON's Governing Board has seven members. One is the full-time Chairman appointed by the Government for a four-year term. The other members include: the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice, a representative from Nepal Rastra Bank, and three other members appointed by the Government.
This structure has two embedded problems.
The first is that two of the seven seats are held by joint secretaries — civil servants appointed to their ministry positions through the Nepal government's bureaucratic process, not for their capital market expertise. These members bring valuable regulatory coordination capacity. But they also bring their ministry's institutional interests into SEBON's policy decisions. A joint secretary of MoF sitting on the SEBON board is structurally positioned to align SEBON's decisions with MoF's fiscal interests — which are not always identical to SEBON's investor protection mandate.
The second is that the three government-appointed members have no prescribed expertise requirement beyond a general public interest standard. The Securities Act requires the committee to recommend candidates based on experience and knowledge — but the definition of qualifying experience is broad enough to accommodate a wide range of candidates whose primary qualification may be their political acceptability.
This is not unique to Nepal. Most regulatory body appointment frameworks struggle with the tension between political accountability and technical independence. The question is not whether political considerations can be entirely removed from the process — they cannot. The question is whether the framework sufficiently weights technical merit to produce institutional leadership that can deliver the reform agenda it is assigned.
What Merit-Based Appointments Actually Require
The RSP Bacha Patra's commitment to merit-based appointments is the right commitment. Making it operational requires specifying what "merit" means for each regulatory position.
For SEBON Chairman: A minimum of fifteen years of demonstrated experience in capital markets, securities law, or financial regulation. Experience must include direct regulatory or supervisory work — not just participation in regulated markets as an investor. Demonstrated familiarity with international regulatory standards — IOSCO principles, Equator Principles, IFC Performance Standards — relevant to Nepal's capital market integration goals.
For NRB Governor: Doctoral or equivalent qualification in economics, monetary economics, or financial regulation. Minimum ten years of senior-level experience in central banking, international financial institution, or equivalent. Demonstrated independence — in writing, not just assertion — from political party instruction.
For ERC Commissioners: Minimum ten years of experience in energy sector regulation, energy economics, or project finance. At least one member with direct engineering experience in electricity generation or transmission. Demonstrated understanding of international energy tariff frameworks and DFI project finance standards.
These are not impossibly high bars. Nepal has professionals who meet each of these criteria. The question is whether the appointment process is designed to find them, evaluate them transparently, and select them on the basis of these qualifications rather than their political acceptability.
The reform is not to prevent political actors from participating in the appointment process. They will, and appropriately so — these are public institutions accountable to elected government. The reform is to ensure that the evaluation criteria are published, that the process is transparent, and that candidates who do not meet minimum technical thresholds cannot be appointed regardless of their political support.
The Compound Effect
Regulatory appointment quality compounds across institutions.
A technically capable SEBON Chairman builds a technically capable staff team. That team can draft implementing regulations that actually work. Those regulations attract internationally credible market participants. Those participants bring capital market depth. That depth generates returns for the EPF and CIT members whose institutional savings the expanded mandate is designed to deploy productively.
The reverse compounds equally. A SEBON with politically appointed leadership, operating without budget or staffing adequate to its mandate, produces regulations that need revision. Revisions require re-gazettal. Re-gazettal takes months. Market participants plan around uncertainty. International investors stay away.
Nepal's capital market has been in the latter compound cycle for much of its institutional history. The NEPSE has grown in terms of listed companies and investor participation — but its depth, its pricing efficiency, and its role in allocating capital toward productive investment remain limited relative to its potential.
That limitation is not primarily a technology problem, a liquidity problem, or a legal framework problem. It is, at its foundation, an institutional leadership problem.
The Specific Opportunity Budget 2083/84 Creates
Budget 2083/84 creates an unusual opportunity. The RSP government has a near-supermajority. The Finance Minister has both the political authority and the technical credibility to redesign the appointment framework for regulatory bodies.
The specific legislative changes that would make merit-based appointments operational:
Securities Act Amendment: Specify minimum qualification criteria for SEBON Chairman and board members. Require the recommendation committee to publish its scoring methodology and scores before recommending candidates to the Cabinet. Require the Cabinet to accept the top-ranked candidate from the committee unless it can demonstrate a disqualifying factor in writing.
NRB Act Amendment: Strengthen the existing party membership prohibition by adding a specific provision barring candidates who have actively campaigned for, contributed to, or publicly endorsed a political party within the preceding five years. Require the Governor selection committee to include at least one member from an international financial institution with no domestic political interest.
ERC Act Amendment: Require at least one Commissioner with direct project finance experience. Publish all Commissioner applications and evaluation criteria publicly before interviews.
These are not radical proposals. They are the minimum architectural changes required to move from a framework where merit is claimed to one where merit is enforced.
The Practitioner's Honest Assessment
Having watched Nepal's regulatory appointment cycles across multiple governments, the honest observation is this:
The quality of individual appointees has been variable — some excellent, some adequate, some clearly not suited for the role. The problem is not that every appointment has been wrong. The problem is that the process cannot reliably distinguish between the excellent and the inadequate, because the criteria for distinction are not transparently defined and consistently applied.
The RSP government has the best opportunity in Nepal's recent history to change this. Not by making every appointment perfectly — that is not possible in any democracy. But by changing the process so that the criteria are public, the evaluation is documented, and the appointment can be held accountable against both.
The reforms in Budget 2083/84 are ambitious, technically sound, and aligned with Nepal's genuine developmental needs. Their success depends on whether the regulators implementing them are equipped to do so.
Merit-based appointments are not a good governance aspiration. They are the operational prerequisite for a 7 percent growth target, a $100 billion economy, and a capital market that actually allocates Nepal's institutional savings toward the infrastructure projects that will produce it.
Everything else in the reform agenda follows from getting this right.
Silicon Himalayas Pvt Ltd advises energy and infrastructure project developers on regulatory compliance, SPV structuring, and DFI engagement preparation. The views in this article represent Silicon Himalayas' independent analysis and are offered as a contribution to public policy discussion. All regulatory references cite publicly available Nepal legislation.
General inquiries: office@silicon-himalayas.com · silicon-himalayas.com