The border that cannot be crossed: why the independence of anti -corruption organs is important

Authors:

Gunduz MammadesCandidate of Law, Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine in 2019-2022

Natalia Mazurlawyer of the Azones Attorney Association

Advertising:

Last week in Ukraine the topic of combating corruption was again at the center of public attention. The reason was the attempt to change legislation that could limit the independence of the National Anti -Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti -Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. These actions caused a powerful wave of criticism. But not only was indignation that was amazed – the latitude of the reaction. And the loudest voice was heard from young people. It was this generation that was the first to go outside, clearly stating: the issue of independence of anti -corruption bodies and democratic development of Ukraine is the issue of our future.

This protest was something greater than a response to a specific legislative initiative. It was a reminder that for the younger generation, democratic values are part of identity. It is an understanding that without honest rules there will be neither justice nor development, nor trust. That is why the authorities, despite its initial rhetoric, had to retreat. So today the Verkhovna Rada has approved a law that returns the selected powers to anti -corruption bodies.

But this confrontation has become another marker of a much deeper problem – the lack of a single vision of what the Ukrainian state should be. And in this discussion, you should refer to the experience of other countries that have already gone from corrupt routine to effective and transparent public administration. Of course, Ukraine has its own unique context and cannot simply copy other people’s models. However, we can analyze what decisions were actually worked and which remained in declarations.

An example of Singapore is one of the most commonly mentioned in world anti -corruption practice. When the country gained independence, it had neither developed institutions, resources, nor the sustainable traditions of statehood. At the same time, the country’s leadership chose a fundamental policy of zero tolerance for corruption, laying it into the structure of public administration.

In Singapore, the central link of the anti -corruption system is the Corruption Practice Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which has been in force since 1952. Its uniqueness lies not only with regard to the executive branch of power, but also that it subordinates to the Prime Minister, and in some cases-can even report to the President if the prime minister tries to stop the investigation.

Cpib has not just a mandate to combat bribery, it is endowed with arrests, searches, access to financial accounts and identify even minimal benefits that may have signs of corruption. And this concerns cases against officials of all levels, including ministers and deputies.

Singapore law does not have a concept as “acceptable gift”: any quid pro quo is a reason for criminal proceedings. In addition, strict mechanisms of ethical control operate in the public service: from the Code of Conduct to Compulsory Rotation of positions that are particularly risks. Such an infrastructure, which combines the power component with administrative prevention, provides a high level of efficiency: for example, in 2024, Cpib has achieved indictments in 97% of cases. In the end, a new ethics of the civil service, based on transparency, competition and professionalism, was proposed to society. It is this approach that not only eradicated household corruption, but also to form a culture of intolerance to it.

No less indicative is Hong Kong’s experience. In the 1970s, there was a deep distrust of power: bribes in the police, abuse of permits, hospitals. The answer was the establishment in 1974 of the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), which from the first days received real instruments of influence. It functions as a separate and constitutionally guaranteed body that does not subordinate to any ministry. Its structure is built on the principle of clear specialization: one unit is engaged in operational investigations, the other – the analysis of internal procedures in state and private institutions, and the third – educational work and changes in public culture.

The commission has a legal right to demand from suspected declaration of assets, freeze suspicious funds, carry out unspoken investigative actions and initiate changes in the procedures of the authorities. The organization operates 24/7: with a hotline available for citizens and checking each appeal without exception. High transparency is also ensured by an independent internal and external audit. Her activities were not limited to the investigations of criminal proceedings, she also analyzed systemic vulnerability and worked with the public. The most striking result was a change in social behavior. Previously, corruption was considered an integral part of the system, then it became socially unacceptable.

Hong Kong showed: corruption is not a mental phenomenon, but a consequence of weak institutions and lack of control.

These examples show that the independence of anti -corruption institutions is not a formal requirement, but the basis of their existence. Without it, any reforms become imitation. It is independence that allows anti -corruption bodies not to be an annex to the executive, but by its controller. It is it that allows investigations where high -ranking officials or close to political leadership. And it is it that provides society with the fact that the fight against corruption is not a political tool, but a real mechanism for protecting public interest.

And here it is important to pay attention to the fact that the anti -corruption infrastructure not only performs its direct function, but also implements prevention and educational influence, educational fabric. That is, it is much wider than the fight against the consequences. It is a real study of the causes of probable legislative and institutional gaps and their elimination. And also – education of generations, for which neither domestic nor political corruption are not variants of the norm. This is the experience that is important to us.

Ukraine already has serious developments: institutions that meet the highest standards have been created, competitions for international participation have been held, special anti -corruption procedural legislation has been adopted. But the greatest challenge is the attempt to preserve these achievements in the context of political turbulence.

With each new Optimization, Restart or Transfer to another format, Ukrainian Anti -Corruption Architecture is at risk. In this case, appeals to the experience of other countries are often either simplified or ignored. Instead, it should be honestly admitted that no effective anti -corruption system in the world has worked without a real independence.

Public reaction to An attempt to limit NABU and SAP’s powers is no exception. Ukrainians are increasingly understanding that anti -corruption is not a technical issue, but a guarantee of the future. Without it, neither investments nor a stable economy, nor entry into the EU. And that is why attempts from political influence on independent institutions are not apathy, but resistance.

It is possible to speak as much as you like about your own path, about the peculiarities of Ukrainian society, the complexity of the transition period. But the essence does not change: an independent anti -corruption system is not an external obligation, but an internal need. It is an institutional frame for a state constructed on trust. And if we really strive to live in a country where the power is accountable, business is honest, and the rules are the same for all, now we have to take care not of convenience, but about the principle.

A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.