By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky has signed a bill that significantly undermines the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, NABU and SAPO, granting the prosecutor general increased control over their investigations. This move, which followed parliament’s approval of the amendments, has sparked protests and strong criticism from watchdogs who fear the legislation will cripple these agencies. The law allows the prosecutor general to direct NABU investigations and reassign SAPO’s powers, potentially closing investigations at the defense’s request. International partners like the EU have expressed concerns, highlighting the importance of independent anti-corruption bodies for Ukraine’s reform agenda and its path toward EU accession.
Read the original article here
Zelensky signs law destroying independence of Ukraine’s key anti-corruption bodies. That’s the headline, and it’s sparking a lot of debate and concern. The core issue here is a newly signed law that seems to be diminishing the autonomy of Ukraine’s primary anti-corruption bodies, specifically NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine) and SAPO (Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office). These agencies were created to investigate and prosecute corruption, a persistent problem in Ukraine, and the new legislation significantly alters their operational landscape.
The immediate worry, and the one resonating most strongly, is the potential for this law to undermine the fight against corruption. Ukraine is in a war, heavily reliant on Western aid, and transparency is paramount. The ability to demonstrate accountability for every dollar is not just advisable, it is critical. Any perception, or reality, of weakening anti-corruption efforts could damage Ukraine’s reputation and its eligibility for EU membership, which relies on meeting specific anti-corruption benchmarks.
The details of the law are concerning. For example, it grants the Prosecutor General, a close ally of Zelensky, greater authority over NABU’s investigations. This includes the power to direct investigations, reassign them, and even close them at the request of the defense. The law also potentially diminishes SAPO’s authority. This raises the specter of political influence over corruption investigations, which undermines the very purpose of these independent bodies. Essentially, it looks like the foxes are being put in charge of guarding the hen house, raising the possibility of corruption cases being stifled or misdirected.
There’s a lot of skepticism surrounding the timing of this law. Some argue that the move comes as a surprise, especially given the existing context of war. The speed with which it was passed and signed, coupled with the public outcry and negative reactions from the EU, raises questions about the intent behind it. The lack of proper communication to the Ukrainian people has also fueled suspicions, with many feeling that this move was not properly justified or explained.
That’s not to say there aren’t complexities here. Some critics of NABU suggest it was not particularly effective, with limited results despite substantial funding. There are even allegations of infiltration by the FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and some cases of high-profile corruption. This raises the question of whether reforms were needed. Some argue that a complete dismantling was not the right approach. Perhaps a better approach would be to address the alleged failings while safeguarding its independence and the integrity of its investigations.
Of course, it’s understandable that some Ukrainians might feel the government is making tough choices given the war. However, the consensus seems to be that the decision to undermine these institutions, without an immediate and clearly laid out plan for a better alternative, is deeply problematic. The concern is that this will be a net loss for anti-corruption efforts.
The reaction is varied but consistent. Protests have already occurred, with many Ukrainians expressing concern. The perception is that this move is a setback for democratic ideals and potentially a boon for Russian propaganda. The criticism isn’t limited to Ukrainians either. The West, especially the EU, is raising serious questions. It’s worth noting, the EU has emphasized that fighting corruption is a key requirement for Ukraine’s eventual membership.
It is crucial to distinguish between blind support and constructive criticism. Supporting Ukraine doesn’t mean ignoring actions that undermine its future. While the war is undoubtedly the priority, weakening the fight against corruption could be seen as undermining the very values Ukraine is fighting to defend, and it could create openings for Russia to undermine their efforts.
In conclusion, the law signed by Zelensky has serious consequences. The immediate impact will likely be an erosion of trust in the government and a hit to Ukraine’s international standing. Even if there are legitimate issues with the existing anti-corruption bodies, this move raises valid concerns. The focus should be on strengthening anti-corruption efforts, not weakening them, especially during a time of war and national reconstruction.