“On July 31, the Parliament adopted in an emergency, and the President of Ukraine signed Law No. 4560s, which restores the independence of NABU and the SAP after its significant restriction a week before. This normative act has become a kind of compromise, as not all the provisions that existed until July 22, 2025, and also introduce additional checks of NABU detectives and other departments by the SBU, which can have a negative impact on the bureau.”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
Don’t forget that this law – Not progress in the development of anti -corruption institutions, but correction of flashy errorswhich in violation of democratic procedures was allowed by the authorities. However, for real development of institutions, efforts are still needed, in particular, aimed at following the recommendations of the auditors who for the first time assessed the work of NABU.
In this article, we will describe the most priority recommendations, having fulfilled which the Verkhovna Rada can really strengthen NABU.
Advertising:
How did the NABU audit happen? The external independent assessment of NABU took place for the first time. This control mechanism is explicitly provided in the NABU profile law annually to show how well the institution works. The audit was conducted by a special commission of three international experts, who appointed the Cabinet of Ministers to the proposal of international organizations that provided Ukraine with technical assistance in the field of combating corruption.
The auditors evaluated the work of NABU in the period from March 2023 (appointment by NABU Director Semen Krivonos) and until November 2024 (date of approval of the evaluation criteria). In general, experts focused on five key areas:
- Detection and investigation of high -ranking corruption,
- The Bureau’s virtue and transparency,
- Resource management and strategic planning,
- cooperation with other government bodies
- International cooperation.
The commission had access to the materials of the completed criminal cases, conducted confidential interviews with NABU employees, prosecutors of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and other officials, and asked the necessary documents from any organization.
In the end in the audit report, published on May 6, 2025, the commission evaluated NABU’s work as moderately effectiveand also formed recommendations aimed at both the leadership of the body and to the parliament and other state bodies. Actually, it would be more appropriate if the people’s deputies in their desire to optimize the work of the anti -corruption system were primarily focused on this report, and did not invent norms that almost killed NABU and SAP independence.
This is also appropriate because the implementation of the recommendations in the audit report will then become a marker for international partners when they evaluate Ukraine’s progress in the fight against corruption.
What recommendations did the Commission address and other bodies address? In total, the Commission provided 26 NABU recommendations for planning, data collection and use, progress tracking and other aspects of work. In addition, the commission explicitly noted that the effectiveness of NABU was influenced by external factors outside the institution’s control, and therefore gave recommendations that should be considered by the Verkhovna Rada or other bodies. The implementation of these tips will require the joint efforts of the Bureau and the Verkhovna Rada, as some of the proposals relate to legislative changes.
Autonomous listening and other issues of state secret It is noteworthy that some of the most critical recommendations are to provide autonomous listening to NABU, as well as tolerances to state secrets. The commission emphasized that SBU dependence In conducting listening, as well as for admission to state secrets, he prevents the institutional independence of the bureau and creates risks to reveal employees undercover.
Therefore, according to the auditors, the parliament or other state bodies should ensure the preparation and implementation of legislative changes, as well as the technical capabilities, so that NABU has full control over their own auditions.
This issue is especially important because the need to receive tolerances from the Security Service of Ukraine, in particular, for the operational search activity is at risk of disclosing sensitive information. And the special irony is that on July 22, the parliamentarians, instead of solving the hands of NABU, fulfilled this recommendation, on the contrary tied them even more. And the issue of autonomous listening is relevant from the very beginning of the bureau.
Independent forensic expertise When evaluating, the commission drew attention to the problem of lack of independent examination in firework. In order to resolve it, the Verkhovna Rada should consider determining the higher level of guarantees for forensic experts, as well as additional fuses from influencing the results of expertise.
In firework, quite often the conclusion of economic or other examination is key to the correct criminal law assessment of the person’s actions. At the same time, WACS has repeatedly recognized the problematic conclusions of expertise that appear in criminal cases. For example, in the case of the Electrolammash plant, the panel of judges APSCS independently assigned an examination, since there were findings of experts who contradicted each other. And in the “gas case”, Alexander Onishchenko APSCS canceled the sentence of first instance, in particular, because the court cannot take over the functions of the expert. Therefore, access to timely and impartial forensic expertise is critical for the quality of high -ranking corruption investigations, and as a consequence – just justice.
Asset arrest: to prevent a two -month extension of the term In the report, the commission warned the people’s deputies from amending the Ukrainian legislation, which require the revision of all resolutions on Action arrest every two months Due to the impracticality of such an event. It is a project of Law No. 12439, which parliamentarians are actively discussing since March 2025. In some material, we have previously explained that this could have a negative impact on NABU’s ability to arrest assets both in Ukraine and abroad.
The solution to this problem is especially important in the context of international cooperation, as such changes can complicate the implementation of decisions on the arrest of assets in foreign jurisdictions. In addition, this is contrary to the European integration aspirations, one of the criteria for which is the quality of the return of criminal assets from abroad.
Cancel “Lozovy” The commission supported the experts’ position on the need to cancel the so -called “Lozovo” amendments. These changes to legislation And already have adversely affected the investigation of NABU casesespecially after the Supreme Court’s decision in October 2022. Then the court unforeseen that, despite the legislative provisions, the terms of the investigation in a certain category of cases had to continue investigating judges, not prosecutor’s management.
The abolition of these amendments will allow NABU and other law enforcement agencies to avoid unjustified closure of criminal proceedings, as well as eliminate other obstacles in the fight against high -ranking corruption.
In May this year, there was a wide discussion to discuss problems related to the pre -trial investigation, so we hope that the authorities will propose an adequate way to resolve these problems in the near future. Moreover, the abolition of “Lozovo” amendments is a number of obligations of Ukraine to international partners.
Regulation of jurisdiction issues One of the systemic problems identified by the audit was the violation of NABU’s jurisdiction. The commission recorded cases where other investigative bodies, instead of transferring the case on the request of NABU, transferred them to the office of the Prosecutor General, which delayed the investigation.
To solve this problem is required in the law:
- to determine clear rules and terms of transmission of criminal proceedings between bodies, in particular if these cases are demanding NABU;
- to introduce administrative or disciplinary liability for officials of the Office of the Prosecutor General, DBR and other bodies for violation of jurisdiction or non -compliance with NABU, SAP or prosecutors in the transfer of cases.
I would like to remind that the Law No. 4555-II did not resolve on July 22, but only worsened the situation with jurisdiction, giving the Office of the Prosecutor General’s right to demand any cases in NABU and transfer them to other law enforcement agencies. That is, again instead of a quality decision, we then received only a deterioration of the situation.
But even now that this danger has been eliminated, the legislation does not contain clear rules for the transfer of proceedings and direct does not provide liability for violation of jurisdiction that creates legal gaps and jeopardizes the admissibility of evidence. And the courts, responding to such violations, will be able to justify the accused, despite all the evidence of the crime. And this offsets the long -term processes of the investigation and the prosecutor’s office.
As an example, in 2023 they were justified from accusations of bribery of the Chief Psychiatric of the Armed Forces, in particular, due to violation of jurisdiction. In January this year, he was again detained by the SBU on suspicion of unreasonable assets of more than $ 1 million and non -policy.
*** Parliamentary decisions of July 22 have shown that instead of strengthening the capabilities of NABU, the authorities may, on the contrary, worsen the situation, limiting the independence of anti -corruption bodies.
The real strengthening of NABU is possible only through the systemic implementation of qualitative recommendations, not through chaotic legislative initiatives. Fortunately, the Verkhovna Rada already has a signpost to improve the efficiency of this law enforcement agency – the recommendations of the first independent audit. And it is the response to this report that should be a priority for Parliament, which really wants to improve the anti -corruption system. We hope that the people’s deputies will go exactly in such a logical and quite legitimate way.
In addition, the implementation of these proposals will not only be a marker of progress for international partners, but also the basis for effective fight against high -ranking corruption. Without such changes, Ukraine risks losing the trust of the international community and undermine its own anti -corruption system during the critical period of restoration of the country.
Pavel DemchukSenior Legal Advisor Transparency International Ukraine
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.