Is NABU only independent agency in Ukrainian law enforcement?

President Zelenskyy’s reform of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau lasted just two days. During this time, the authorities realized they couldn’t withstand the pressure from civil society and international partners. So they decided to restore NABU’s institutional independence — after hastily undermining it with 263 parliamentary votes.

"Interestingly, the government also betrayed those 263 MPs. They were discarded like dead weight, without even a theoretical chance to redeem themselves by submitting a similar bill independently. So it turns out that MPs carried out the “corruption reform,” and the president swooped in to fix everything and restore justice."

Regarding the submitted bill, I’ll just note that the promised “reliable protection of the law enforcement system from any Russian influence or interference” turned out to be completely empty. The draft law states that some (not all) employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, the State Bureau of Investigation, the Security Service of Ukraine, the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine, and the Office of the Prosecutor General must undergo a polygraph test every two years. But what is to be done with the results of the polygraph? That’s entirely unclear. You can’t fire a NABU detective or any other official based on a polygraph result. That would require amendments to the NABU Law. Without such changes, the only thing you can do with a polygraph result is stick it in a drawer and forget about it. President Zelenskyy’s second reform of NABU has no legal consequences.

"The bill also does nothing to strengthen the independence of other law enforcement agencies. Even basic formal logic is enough here: if the National Anti-Corruption Bureau is independent, does that mean the others are dependent?"

In fact, the situation with two changes to the independent status of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau within a week should serve as a reason for a broader reform of law enforcement agencies. It’s no secret that none of these institutions hold real authority in the eyes of the public, except, perhaps, the Security Service of Ukraine, since it is a wartime intelligence agency. Meanwhile, rear-line law enforcement officers are too often involved in scandals to leave their work without scrutiny. Law enforcement agencies should not be used to politically persecute the opposition or to detain people in pre-trial detention for years without a verdict, just because investigators cannot prove their guilt.

So yes, we should support the president’s steps to restore the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. But we must also realize this is far from enough — all law enforcement agencies must be truly independent.

Source

About the author. Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.