The government says it is pressing ahead with its good governance agenda, even as political uncertainties and resistance from vested interests threaten to slow the pace of reform.

Speaking on International Anti-Corruption Day in Kathmandu, Prime Minister Sushila Karki sought to underline that her administration’s primary responsibility goes beyond managing elections. Instead, she argued, it lies in responding to a public demand—particularly from young people—for cleaner, more accountable governance.

The prime minister reminded her audience that the current government emerged in the wake of a Gen Z–led push against corruption, a movement that has amplified public frustration with entrenched malpractice. That origin, she said, leaves the government with little choice but to continue acting against corrupt practices, regardless of political calculations.

Ms Karki acknowledged that expectations raised by the youth movement may not be met overnight. Structural reform, she suggested, is a gradual process. Yet her message was clear: the government will not retreat from taking tough action. Existing state mechanisms, she said, are already in motion to pursue anti-corruption measures.

Perhaps most telling was her reference to intimidation. According to the prime minister, some groups unsettled by the anti-graft drive have attempted to issue direct or indirect threats. Her response was defiant. The government, she insisted, would not be cowed.

She also used the occasion to send a signal to the bureaucracy. Civil servants and officials in oversight bodies, she said, should not allow fear or political pressure to limit their work. Professional independence, she argued, is central to rebuilding public trust in the state.

The remarks highlight both the promise and the challenge of Nepal’s current anti-corruption push. Public anger—fuelled in part by youth activism—has created momentum for reform. But the reference to threats is a reminder of the resistance such efforts inevitably provoke.

For now, the prime minister is presenting good governance not as a slogan but as a test of political will. Whether that resolve translates into lasting institutional change is likely to define public judgement of this government long after the immediate political moment has passed.