Brussels – These are difficult days for Ukrainian democracy. The government is allegedly carrying out a clampdown against the country’s main anti-corruption bodies, at least according to the complaints of oppositions, activists, and civil society. Officially, the motivation is that these institutions are the subject of an infiltration by a network of spies in the service of Russia. But NGOs and the independent press denounce an authoritarian crackdown, which threatens to compromise Kiev’s path to accession to the twelve-star club.
Governing a country at war is not easy, especially in a democracy. All the more so if it is historically plagued by chronic and documented corruption problems. One of the risks in these situations is that, while the army fights in the trenches and bombs rain down on civilians, the special powers granted by martial law are wielded by the political leadership to force or tamper with democratic infrastructure, masking these actions with the excuse of safeguarding national security.
According to critics of Volodymyr Zelensky‘s leadership, a good number of civil society organisations, as well as a part of the local independent press, believe that this is exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now.
The amendments to the penal code
The Verchovna Rada, the single-chamber parliament in Kyiv, today (22 July) approved by a large majority (263 votes in favour, 13 against, and 13 abstentions) a series of controversial amendments to the Criminal Code, with which, various observers denounce, the independence of the two main institutions for combating corruption is being shattered. The law is now under consideration by Zelensky, who can either enact it or veto it presidentially. A decision that opponents take for granted, however, given that the legislative changes were introduced by his own party, the People’s Servant (SN), which controls the chamber and runs the government.
With the new regulations, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Office of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (SAPO) will come under the control of the Prosecutor General, who is appointed directly by the President of the Republic. Since last month, this role has been held by Ruslan Kravchenko, considered a loyal ally of Zelensky. If the law enters into force, Kravchenko will be able to intervene in NABU investigations, reassign them to other offices, and even close them directly. Similarly, he will be able to delegate the powers of the SAPO to other prosecutors.
The leadership of both institutions in question has bitterly contested the law, arguing that it will ultimately destroy the country’s anti-corruption infrastructure painstakingly put in place over the decade following Euromaidan, and also jeopardise Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. MP Anastasiia Radina, head of the House committee in the SN quota, said in no uncertain terms that today’s vote amounts to the “dismantling of NABU and SAPO.”
Ukrainian service searches
Various monitoring bodies have raised the alarm about the potential for the government to use these new provisions instrumentally to hinder ongoing investigations into entities, individuals, or groups close to the president or the executive branch itself. Just today, NABU and SAPO accused a senior official of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) of extorting a $300,000 bribe together with two accomplices in exchange for facilitating the illegal expatriation of military-age men.
Yesterday alone (21 July), the SBU and the State Bureau of Investigation conducted over 70 searches on NABU and SAPO premises, arresting two employees of the former for allegedly spying for Russia and international drug trafficking, and investigating 15 others for violations ranging from traffic violations to high treason. According to witnesses, the authorities resorted to a disproportionate use of force, eventually injuring at least three people.
The NABU alleges that the SBU did not have a proper court order to search its premises and access sensitive data related to ongoing investigations. However, the services returned the accusations to the sender, justifying the absence of warrants on the basis of national security protocols. The SBU stated that it had gathered evidence of the transfer of confidential information to Russian services (FSB).
Pressure campaign?
According to opposition groups and civil society associations, the move is part of a wider pressure campaign targeting anti-corruption bodies, activists, NGOs, and, more generally, the country’s democratic structures themselves.
On 14 July, activist Vitaliy Shabunin, co-founder of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), the country’s most prominent anti-corruption NGO, was arrested on charges of fraud and evading military service. Shabunin claims that this is a politically motivated move, a position also defended by, among others, the NGO Transparency International.
The Kyiv Independent, one of the most internationally renowned independent Ukrainian media outlets, writes in no uncertain terms about the risk of a “Russian-style democratic regression” and the “sabotage of the rule of law” by the Ukrainian leadership, suggesting that the government wants to ensure a kind of “amnesty for corruption in the defence industry” at a critical moment in the war against the Federation.
International reactions
However, the latest developments are also creating increasing headaches beyond national borders. “The EU is concerned about Ukraine’s recent actions against its anti-corruption institutions,” Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier chimed in this morning, emphasising that the NABU and SAPO “are fundamental to Ukraine’s reform agenda and must operate independently to fight corruption and maintain public confidence.”
If what appears to be a Kyiv crusade against the rule of law does not subside, the very prospect of joining the European club could be called into question. “The EU provides significant financial assistance to Ukraine, conditional on progress on transparency, judicial reform and democratic governance,” Mercier recalled, reiterating that “Ukraine’s accession to the EU will require a strong capacity to fight corruption and ensure institutional resilience.”
The ambassadors of the G7 members in Kyiv also expressed “serious concern“, declaring their “willingness to discuss these developments with the government leadership” and reiterating their support “for transparency, independent institutions, and good governance” as well as continued work with Ukraine “to combat corruption together.”
In fact, the internal clash appears to be only just beginning, raising a fundamental question about the solidity of Ukrainian democracy after three and a half years of resistance to the Russian invasion. A new round of talks in Istanbul between delegations from Kyiv and Moscow is scheduled for tomorrow (23 July), although no one expects a decisive breakthrough in the ceasefire negotiations.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
