The trial of ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, on charges of exceeding her authority in negotiating a bad deal to end the 2009 gas-shutoff crisis with Russia, has been revealing.
Oleh Dubyna, head of state energy company Naftogaz during Tymoshenko’s 2007-2010 term as prime minister, gave startling testimony. Not known as an ally of Tymoshenko, Dubyna’s testimony was not favorable for her defense in some respects.
He said, for instance, that he would not have approved gas accords with Russia had he known there was not full Cabinet approval. But Dubyna’s testimony was most damning for former President Viktor Yushchenko and Yanukovych.
When the head of big state company gives testimony that the president was lobbying the interests of a murky company instead of a state company, an investigation is warranted. But where is it?
Dubyna backed up Tymoshenko’s allegations that Yushchenko was – during the tough gas price negotiations with Russia in 2008 into 2009 – lobbying the interests of Swiss-registered RosUkrEnergo.
Co-owned by businessmen close to Yanukovych along with Russian gas giant Gazprom, the company made a fortune in prior years as the top intermediary in multi-billion-dollar supply deals among Ukraine, Russia and Central Asian producers.
Tymoshenko has long claimed that the company made a few insiders close to Yushchenko and Yanukovych spectacularly wealthy at the expense of state-owned Naftogaz, which could have itself supplied the gas to Ukraine directly.
In his testimony, Dubyna backed up claims by Tymoshenko that Yushchenko, who constantly undermined her as prime minister, appeared to be brokering a deal to keep RosUkrEnergo in as a supplier to Ukraine while also sabotaging an agreement she was negotiating for lower gas prices before the New Year’s energy standoff.
Asked during the testimony if he had contact with RosUkrEnergo’s founders and managers, Dubyna said: “Yes. I met with them only in the presidential administration. Three times in Viktor [Yushchenko’]s office, twice in the office of [Viktor] Baloha, [Yushchenko’s chief of staff.]”
This contradicts repeated denials of Yushchenko that he was acquainted with the owners of RosUkrEnergo. Dubyna, in his testimony, suggested Yushchenko knew them quite well.
Asked by Tymoshenko if Yushchenko supported RosUkrEnergo, whose transparency has long been questioned by the European Union, the United States and independent energy experts, Dubyna testified: “Well, probably yes. More yes than no. That he supported this company? I would say ‘yes,’ more than no.” Asked how he got this impression, Dubyna said: “I met representatives of RosUkrEnergo in the office of Viktor [Yushchenko].”
Dubyna also confirmed Tymoshenko’s claim that Yushchenko called him back to Kyiv from Moscow on Dec. 31 2008, preventing Naftogaz from finalizing a gas price agreement which envisioned lower prices than Ukraine ultimately got.
When the head of big state company gives testimony that the president was lobbying the interests of a murky company instead of a state company, an investigation is warranted. But where is it?
We don’t expect an investigation, because such a probe would:
1) punish Yushchenko, who did everything in his power ahead of the 2010 presidential elections to ensure Yanukovych beat Tymoshenko;
2) it would run contrary to the interests of businessmen close to Yanukovych, including RosUkrEnergo co-owners Dmytro Firtash and Ivan Fursin; and
3) such an investigation would vindicate Tymoshenko, Yanukovych’s much-feared rival.
This is not an honest crackdown on corruption, as Yanukovych claims. It’s a shift toward authoritarianism and banana republic-style governance.
We also see no signs of an investigation into interference by the presidential administration into another witness that gave testimony last week during the Tymoshenko trial.
Former deputy prosecutor general and current deputy energy minister Tetyana Kornyakova gave testimony that, according to a report by leading online news portal Ukrainska Pravda, partially vindicated Tymoshenko.
But hours after the report came out, a press release was issued by Kornyakova denying such a conclusion.
The press release, as Pravda.com.ua revealed, was written on a Microsoft Word software registered with the presidential administration.
If, indeed, the president’s office wrote the press release as the document’s properties indicate, then this supports claims that the president’s office is – at the very least – heavily involved in shaping testimony given by key witnesses.
This, in turn, only adds to concerns that Ukraine’s judges and prosecutors are not independent, that they and witnesses take orders from top authorities in this and other “show trials.”
Why are there no investigations into these two most recent examples of wrongdoing, not to mention nearly two decades worth of unsolved, more serious crimes?
The answer is simple and in line with the concerns of the U.S. and European Union, both of which see Yanukovych’s administration as engaging in selective and politically-motivated prosecutions to sideline opponents while ignoring wrongdoings by allies.
This is not an honest crackdown on corruption, as Yanukovych claims. It’s a shift toward authoritarianism and banana republic-style governance.
