Service vs. Service: fight for control over corruption in Ukraine

The surrounding of president Volodymyr Zelenski continues his efforts to discredit and restrict the independency of the National Anti-corruption Office (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP). The aim is to make proceedings against persons associated with the head of state, the Office of the president (BP) or the government more difficult. The safety Service of Ukraine (SBU) controlled by BP is harassing NABU detectives, accusing them of fraud or cooperating with the Russians. The authorities are besides taking steps to restrict access to public information, including real property registers, and besides to prohibit the publication by the media of any material on ongoing corruption investigations.

This raises concerns for the non-governmental sector and investigative journalists about the regression in anti-corruption reforms and makes it hard to control law enforcement. Western and EU countries are besides critical of this, making it clear that the deficiency of strong and independent anti-corruption institutions in Ukraine could hold or reduce the value of subsequent tranches of financial assistance and negatively affect Kiev's advancement towards European integration.

Corruption Gordian node

Despite the withdrawal of the authorities in July this year, under force from social protests, from controversial legal changes, eliminating the independency of NABU and SAP (see IP/10/27). Ukraine: ultimate Council restores independency of anti-corruption bodies),The presidential camp continued its attempts to neutralize both institutions. This is not a phenomenon of the time of war, as it is in line with the moves to limit the independency of these institutions since their creation – NABU in 2014 and SAP a year later. These actions were taken by president Petr Poroshenko from 2014 to 2019 and by Zelenski before a full-scale Russian invasion.

Currently, manual control of the services aims to defend people associated with Zelenski's crew from criminal responsibility. In taking action against NABU detectives, SBU selected those active in anti-corruption proceedings whose figure was a close associate of the president and co-owner of the studio 4th 95 Timur Mindicz. He was suspected of inflating his prices and utilizing his acquaintances in the circles of power to set up tenders covering the supply of drones (fire point company). Mindich left Ukraine in June this year and is most likely in Vienna.

An example of interference in the course of the NABU proceedings is the case of erstwhile Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Czernyszów, suspected of fraud associated with the improvement of the project. In late June this year he returned to Ukraine from a abroad delegation. In fear of possible arrest by NABU, he crossed the border under the protection of military intelligence personnel and SBU officers. By decision of the court, after bailing him out, however, as a fishy he was granted approval to participate in the proceedings with a free foot. According to reports of the media critical of Zelenski, the Chernyszov case was an impulse to hold a gathering at the BP with the management of the law enforcement services and authorities, during which options for limiting the independency of the NAB were discussed.

The government camp disregards social criticism. Sociological studies indicate that the public considers corruption to be the second biggest – after Russian aggression – threat to the stableness of the state. In early October, Kiev global Institute of Sociology presented a survey showing that 71% of Ukrainians are convinced that corruption in the country developed during the ongoing war. The October surveys of SOCIS besides revealed that 61.5% of the population has negatively assessed the public authorities' activities in managing public funds, while recognising budgetary fraud as the biggest mistake of the current government. Almost half of respondents (49.2%) blame president Zelenski for this state of affairs.

The tactics of the authorities – attached to the informal application of pressures and causing much harm to the image of the president – are due to the specificity of Ukrainian political culture. Direct, frequently informal and manipulative interference in the functioning of state institutions, and even media, is considered legitimate in the BP. In 2024, SBU, inspired by president Oleh Tatarov's advisor, attempted to discredit critical media against Zelenski and his surroundings (see IP/10/287). Ukrainian media targeted at services).

Another method, the same goal

The SBU undermines the credibility of NABU and SAP, conducting proceedings against their officers, for which it uses biased explanation as a pretext. In July of this year, 15 NABU detectives were included in the operational activities (research) and the SAP began to monitor compliance with the authoritative secrecy. The aim is to make matters hard for these institutions and put force on officers.

On September 25, SBU launched investigations against erstwhile Bureau detectives working on state railways. The service suspects them of fraud in the rail transport sector, in peculiar in the area of freight. In its response, NABU indicated that the activities of the SBU were related to the engagement of Bureau detectives in investigative teams which revealed organised criminal groups in state enterprises as well as in the SBU itself. On the retaliation of NABU and SAP, on the same day, they brought an indictment against the chief of 1 of the SBU's pawns, accusing him of forcing a bribe of $300,000 for waiving a case for the organisation of smuggling of people who were exempt from military service.

NABU and SAP are developing crisis plans in case of a fresh wave of attacks on both institutions. The main presumption behind this is to prevent NABU from stopping investigations. At the same time, anti-corruption detectives are to inform the public and global partners if essential of incidents affecting their independence. The head of the NABU Semen Krywonos warned that the parliament was working on laws that would let for partial treatment of corruption offences if adopted. An example is the draft Law No 11228-1 to avoid liability for corruption in the event of a suspect's engagement in counter-intelligence activities. This would let the SBU to usage a runway to defend the political and business elite from criminal work and de facto legalize corruption as alleged means of combating an aggressor.

Using the SBU, the President's Office does not quit discrediting independent NABU and SAP and seeks to strengthen SBU's position. Service management is curious in maintaining anti-corruption in its competence and continuing to prosecute fraud cases. To this end, it reaches out to the powers associated with counter-intelligence protection of the economy. This run will let the activity of competitors to paralyze.

Another reason for the decreasing effectiveness of institutions set up to fight corruption is the inertia of the judiciary. The sources of this state of affairs are years of deliberate negligence on the part of authorities wishing to keep informal control over judges. Their verification has not been completed and the work of the advanced Council of Justice liable for appointing judges is criticised for deficiency of transparency. Many criminal proceedings concerning corruption involving high-ranking officials have been waiting for a ruling for years, and any of them are decommissioned due to the fact that there is simply a statute of limitations.

The head of SAP Alexander Kłymenko supported Krywonos and appealed to the authorities to destruct the alleged Łozowy amendment, allowing – under the pretext of countering long-term proceedings – to automatically expire corruption cases due to prolonged investigations or delays in courts. In his view, the deficiency of a mechanics that would let judges to be punished deliberately delaying or depriving proceedings without justification is besides destructive. The strong reactions of the heads of NABU and SAP show that they will proceed to criticise manipulations weakening the anti-corruption strategy and identify shortcomings in the legal system, hoping that this will stay at the centre of Western partners' attention, which will aid to reduce the legally questionable actions of the authorities.

Waiting for a better time

The NABU, which opposes SBU's attempts, is supported by both Western partners and anti-corruption organisations and investigative journalists. The head of the Anti-Corruption Centre Vitali Szabunin consistently points out that SBU's aggressive actions towards NABU control BP, which aims to slow but systematic demolition of independent anti-corruption bodies. He recalled that the discredit run had intensified just before the July vote in the ultimate Council of the Act limiting the independency of NABU and SAP (see. Ukraine: Elimination of the independency of anti-corruption services against affront at the top of power) erstwhile reports of “Russian influences in NABU” have been manipulated to discredit investigators. According to him, investigations against people associated with the camp of power are to be transferred to another bodies (SBU may take over the investigation under the pretext that it concerns, for example, the defence or counter-intelligence security), and then, after long-term activities, is redeemed. As a consequence, this could undermine public assurance in institutions that were a symbol of reforms introduced after 2014 and reduce the willingness of citizens to cooperate with law enforcement and justice.