In late July, President Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to strip the anti-graft agencies of their independence, triggering nationwide protests.
The decision was later reversed amid public outcry. But, the incident also brought Ukraine’s fight against corruption back under the spotlight – namely, how effective and independent the system truly is to begin with.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Here are nine things to know about the functions, appointments, and effectiveness of Ukraine’s anti-corruption ecosystem.
What are the anti-graft agencies?
The key agencies involved in prosecuting high-level corruption are the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC).
Zlata Symonenko, an attorney and board member of the Ukrainian Bar Association, as well as a former member of the NABU Oversight Council, told Kyiv Post that these agencies are designed to be “immune from influence by any other authority.”
“NABU, SAPO, and HACC are independent government bodies, immune from influence by any other authority. This independence is essential, as the subjects of their investigations include Category A civil servants, key political leaders, and individuals possessing substantial financial resources,” Symonenko told Kyiv Post.
“The underlying rationale for their establishment was to create a fully autonomous anti-corruption infrastructure, ensuring that no external actor could exert undue influence over their activities,” she added.
Ukraine Hints at 5 Hours Daily Blackouts in Peak Summer Season
What are their functions?
Symonenko explained the roles of the agencies to Kyiv Post as follows:
-
NABU acts as the investigative body, tasked with gathering and securing admissible evidence
-
SAPO serves as the prosecutorial authority, vested with the discretion to determine whether to serve a notice of suspicion, to file an indictment, or to seek restrictions upon a person’s rights through applications to the court
-
The HACC functions as the judicial forum where the parties present their arguments, and where decisions are rendered on the basis of the balance of interests and in strict adherence to the law.
Advertisement
Appointing judges to the HACC is a key requirement for receiving European funding under the Ukraine Facility program.
Does NABU handle all corruption cases?
NABU jurisdiction covers high-profile corruption cases, while lower-level cases are handled by other law enforcement agencies, such as the National Police or the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR).
One of the now-defunct pages on NABU’s site lists the nature of the crimes and the people under its jurisdiction, which lists the prime minister, lawmakers, presidential aides – even the president, as long as his/her tenure is over – among those it has the authority to investigate.
One of the recent high-profile cases involved a suspicion notice issued to the then-serving Deputy Prime Minister, Oleksiy Chernyshov, for fraud.
An earlier explainer from Kyiv Post listed the key conditions a case has to meet for it to fall under NABU’s jurisdiction.
How does Ukraine guarantee the independence of anti-corruption proceedings?
Judges from HACC, the court responsible for corruption cases, were chosen by an international commission to ensure their independence, according to Symonenko.
“With regard to the independence of judicial proceedings, it is worth emphasizing that the judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court were selected by a special international commission,” she told Kyiv Post.
“Each judge was required to pass written examinations and undergo an interview process. Furthermore, the judges enjoy a guaranteed high level of remuneration, along with a range of statutory safeguards designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” she added.
Appointing judges to the HACC is a key requirement for receiving European funding under the Ukraine Facility program – a process that, according to lawmaker Denys Maslov, faced setbacks as of Monday, Aug. 4.
“While the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on HACC cases directly, it still retains the power to review whether the law was applied correctly.”
Do all cases from NABU go to HACC by default?
Yes and no, according to Symonenko.
While the HACC is tasked with ruling over corruption cases, not every single case initiated by NABU will reach the court.
“From my professional observations, not all criminal proceedings are subsequently referred to the courts. For example, in my practical experience, there are cases that remain under investigation, as well as cases that have been closed due to the absence of elements constituting a criminal offense,” she said.
But if the accused receives a suspicion notice, it means that the evidence presented is sufficient to proceed to court.
“In the context of the present matter, I would note that the majority of criminal proceedings in which individuals have been formally served with a notice of suspicion are, as a category, generally transmitted to the courts,” Symonenko said.
“This is because, once the prosecutor has resolved to issue such a notice, it indicates that the evidence gathered points to a potential criminal offense,” she added.
Notably, while the Supreme Court – whose integrity has come under scrutiny following a corruption case involving its own chief – does not have the authority to rule on HACC cases directly, it still retains the power to review whether the law was applied correctly.
“NABU cases can be considered exclusively by the HACC, but the Supreme Court has the right to consider the NABU case in a separate part, for example, the law was applied incorrectly or the practice of the European Court was not used,” Symonenko said.
“That is, the Supreme Court does not consider the essence of the case, but only issues of law enforcement.”
What about the independence of NABU?
To ensure the independence of the agency heads, a special commission is established to appoint them.
In 2022, the commission consisted of three representatives from the state and three from outside Ukraine.
“In 2022, the selection commission for the appointment of the director of NABU consisted of six members: Three appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and three nominated by Ukraine’s international partners,” Symonenko said.
“The key principle is to ensure a balance of interests within the commission, meaning that it shall comprise independent, non-political experts representing the State, as well as international and civil society organizations,” she added.
“The presidency and the government have been in power for almost seven years. The average time for investigating top corruption is two to three years, and now we have new suspicions.”
What about oversight for NABU?
Symonenko said oversight for NABU comes in the form of conduct and function monitoring, without external parties having access to its cases.
“NABU operates in conjunction with the NABU Public Oversight Council. The council’s mandate does not encompass the review or analysis of criminal proceedings; rather, it focuses on assessing the conduct of NABU detectives, participating in disciplinary commissions, and contributing to the selection process for detectives,” she said.
“The Council has no access to, nor knowledge of, the details or materials of criminal proceedings,” she added.
The system also helps explain concerns around Zelensky’s proposed bill, which would have allowed the prosecutor general – an official outside the independent anti-corruption framework – to manage and reassign NABU and SAPO cases, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for investigation tip-offs.
Is there a connection between NABU’s recent cases and the Rome Recovery Conference?
While some suspect that high-profile cases – such as the one involving Chernyshov – were timed to coincide with the Rome Recovery Conference, which secured billions for Ukraine’s reconstruction and raised concerns about potential corruption, Symonenko said she saw no connection, noting that such investigations typically take a long time to develop.
“No, I don’t think that there is any connection… The presidency, the parliament and the government have been in power for almost seven years. The average time for investigating top corruption is two to three years, and now we have new suspicions,” she told Kyiv Post when asked about her thoughts on the potential relations.
Filing a case takes time to gather evidence, and thus it is unlikely to be directly tied to recent events.
“In order to charge someone, NABU must process hundreds of thousands of documents, interrogate people and conduct searches and phone checks. That’s why just now we have these results,” she added.
“Could we have imagined 10 years ago that criminal proceedings would be initiated against a newly elected Head of the Supreme Court?”
Is NABU effective?
As the bill to strip NABU of its independence simmered, some questioned the effectiveness of NABU itself.
When asked about her thoughts on the subject, Symonenko first said it depends on what constitutes “effective.”
“It should be noted at the outset that we do not define specific criteria for ‘effectiveness.’ In other words, what does it mean for a pre-trial investigation body to be ‘effective’?” she said.
“For some, it may be the number of individuals under arrest or serving sentences; for others, it may be the total amount of funds recovered to the state budget from convicted persons; for yet others, it may be the number of illegal corruption schemes involving the misappropriation of public funds that have been dismantled,” she added.
While effectiveness can be measured by indicators, Symonenko argued that these agencies are not private companies.
“Accordingly, in order to speak meaningfully about effectiveness, it would first be necessary to define key performance indicators (KPIs) for NABU. Furthermore, NABU and SAPO are pre-trial investigation bodies, not private businesses that operate according to an economic formula of costs, expenses, and profits,” she said.
But judging from where Ukraine stood 10 years ago and now, Symonenko said she believes Ukraine has made a tremendous leap in its anti-corruption fight.
“In my view, these bodies are indeed effective, although, naturally, there remain certain fair and legitimate questions regarding their work, as there are with any other public authority,” she said.
“Could we have imagined 10 years ago that criminal proceedings would be initiated against a newly elected Head of the Supreme Court for receiving unlawful benefits, or against high-ranking members of the president’s team for embezzlement of state funds?” she added.
“No – and this, in itself, is an indicator of their effectiveness.”
That success is also reflected in the level of fear and caution these institutions – NABU, SAPO, and HACC – inspire among public officials and authorities.
“From a practical standpoint, I can state with confidence that the only authorities genuinely feared by top-level public officials and members of parliament are NABU, SAPO, and HACC. This is a clear sign that their work is being carried out properly.”
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
