The Verkhovna Rada’s law enforcement committee on Jan. 27 approved a bill dealing a blow to the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
If approved by the Rada, the bill will allow Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova to take cases away from the NABU without court approval and give them to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The Prosecutor General’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.
The move follows numerous other attempts to limit or destroy the NABU’s independence under President Volodymyr Zelensky as the bureau takes on presidential allies and other top officials and oligarchs. Specifically, Zelensky protégé Venediktova has been accused of trying to derail NABU’s bribery case against Zelensky’s deputy chief of staff Oleh Tatarov. She denies the accusations.
The Tatarov case was moved from NABU to a more politically-dependent agency, the Security Service of Ukraine, but the High Anti-Corruption Court ruled that it falls within the NABU’s jurisdiction.
However, in January, prosecutors changed the charges for the main suspect in the case — apparently in another attempt to change the jurisdiction from the NABU to other law enforcement agencies, according to the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a watchdog.
Venediktova’s spokesperson didn’t answer a request for comment.
Tatarov’s case changing hands
Tatarov is under investigation in a case linked to developer and ex-lawmaker Maksym Mykytas.
Mykytas has been charged with alleged embezzlement conducted through an Ukrbud housing development contract for Ukraine’s National Guard in 2016-2017.
On Dec. 18, Tatarov, who used to serve as a lawyer for Ukrbud, was charged with bribing forensic expert Kostyantyn Dubonos on behalf of Mykytas to get false evaluation results that helped the company. Tatarov denies the accusations.
The case has been changing hands rapidly.
On Dec. 2, Venediktova replaced the group of prosecutors overseeing the Tatarov case as they were preparing to bring charges against the deputy chief of staff and going to a court to apply for his arrest. This delayed the charges against Tatarov.
NABU opened an investigation into what it believes to be Venediktova’s unlawful interference in the Tatarov case by replacing prosecutors in order to save him from prosecution.
On Dec. 24, Venediktova’s deputy transferred the investigation from NABU to the Security Service of Ukraine, which is believed by civic watchdogs to be more politically dependent and less effective than the NABU. It was done on the order of Serhiy Vovk, a discredited judge at Kyiv’s Pechersk Court.
The NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office believe the transfer of the Tatarov case to be unlawful.
Under Ukrainian law, the Tatarov bribery case falls directly into NABU’s jurisdiction, and NABU cases cannot be considered by other law enforcement agencies. Disputes on NABU’s jurisdiction can only be considered by the High Anti-Corruption Court and cannot be heard by the Pechersk Court.
The Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) challenged the transfer of the case from NABU to the SBU in court.
As a result, the High Anti-Corruption Court ruled on Jan. 15 that the Tatarov case must be investigated by the NABU and ordered Venediktova to consider a motion to transfer the investigation to the bureau. She has yet to make a decision.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Andriy Hrytsan has applied to withdraw a motion by the SAPO to return the Tatarov case to the NABU. According to the Anti-Corruption Action Center, he did so on Venediktrova’s orders. Venediktova’s spokesperson didn’t answer the Kyiv Post’s request for comment.
The High Anti-Corruption Court has refused the withdrawal because it does not have the case materials, but requested to see the materials — meaning their decision may not be final.
Meanwhile, the National Police on Dec. 29 charged Mykytas with kidnapping in what his lawyer believes to be an attempt to pressure the former lawmaker due to his testimony against Tatarov. Mykytas was arrested on kidnapping charges on Dec. 31.
The Tatarov case was effectively buried on Dec. 30 when new prosecutors appointed by Venediktova refused to arrest him and said the legal grounds for the charges were not sufficient.
