Protests begin over law limiting the independence of anti-corruption agencies

“Friends, let’s gather for a rally and defend what we have been building over the past decade. We are gathering at 8:00 PM on the square near the Ivan Franko Theater. This is the closest accessible place to the Office of the President. So I hope we will be visible from their windows.”

Armed Forces of Ukraine veteran Dmytro Koziatynskyi posted this call to action on his account on the social media site X, formerly Twitter, at 4:52 pm Kyiv time on July 23rd to protest a bill that would place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the control of the presidentially-appointed Chief Prosecutor. These are Ukraine’s primary governmental bodies for investigating and prosecuting corruption. Three hours later, over a thousand protesters gathered at the Ivan Franko Theater in Kyiv, with accompanying demonstrations in Lviv, Odesa, and Dnipro.

The crowd was mostly young – in their early twenties. Too young to have been at the Revolution of Dignity, and not of that generation who made up the larger share of activists in the years after, but were now at war. They were instead of the generation that grew into adulthood knowing what protest accomplished. With no time to prepare, the demonstrators hastily crafted placards on the spot from grocery store cardboard boxes that demanded to veto bill #12414, the controversial law in question.

The square was filled nonstop with chanting. “Shame.” “Ukraine is not Russia.” Intermixed with “Glory to Ukraine” and the Ukrainian national anthem. The atmosphere was energetic, engaged, and ready for a prolonged movement if needed.

Bill #12414 came as a sudden surprise to Ukrainian civil society. While it would have been worked on earlier, it had been rushed through committee only that morning and immediately put to a vote. It was voted for by most of the ruling Servant of the People Party with the support of Fatherland Party of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the remnants of what was the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc. The remainder of the opposition voted against it, with the liberal Holos party putting up the strongest resistance.

The arguments used by the government to justify the law and bring NABU and SAPO under more direct executive control were twofold:

Firstly, a member of NABU’s board and influential activist, Vitalii Shabunin, is under investigation for evading military service and fraud. He denies these claims, saying that he had voluntarily joined the Territorial Defense in the opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion and split his duties between the military and anti-corruption work.

Secondly, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) is investigating NABU for infiltration by Russian intelligence. They allege that Ruslan Magamedrasulov, who runs the regional office covering the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, facilitated illegal business with the Russian Federation through his father and was in contact with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). They claim that the infiltration goes even further and have conducted dozens of raids on NABU personnel over the previous few days.

In response to these allegations, NABU has claimed on its Telegram channel that the SBU was aware of a suspected Russian agent in their ranks, but directed them not to act.

Meanwhile, this is far from the first time that NABU, SAPO, or anti-corruption civil society has clashed with the government. It has typically resulted in a harsh response from international partners who considered these agencies and their independence to be requisites for continued funding. In 2020, the International Monetary Fund stated in response to a draft law that threatened NABU’s independence, “Any legislative changes that restrict NABU’s independence will be perceived as a withdrawal from prior anti-corruption requirements.” In the case of the current law, Spokesman for the European Commission Guillaume Mercier, commented to the Ukrainian outlet Liga that EU funding is “conditional on progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance." The extent of what pressure will come from Ukraine’s international partners has yet to be seen.

Ukrainian civil society’s response has been clearer. New Voice of Ukraine has earlier compiled a list of reactions to the law from prominent figures, and they were overwhelmingly negative, strong, and frequently drew comparisons to the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Anti-corruption was one of the pillars of the Revolution, and our interviewees repeated that restricting NABU would reverse over a decade of reforms.

By the end of the night, the website of the Ukrainian parliament indicated that President Zelensky had signed Bill #12414 into law. The President issued a statement at 1:00 in the morning explaining the decision, expressing his frustrations with what he considers NABU and SAPO’s ineffectiveness and Russian influence:

“The anti-corruption infrastructure will work. Only without Russian influence, it needs to be cleared of that. And there should be more justice. 

Of course, NABU and SAPO will work. And it is important that the Prosecutor General is determined to ensure that in Ukraine the inevitability of punishment for those who go against the law is actually ensured. This is what Ukraine really needs. 

The cases that have been lying dormant must be investigated. For years, officials who have fled Ukraine have been casually living abroad for some reason – in very nice countries and without legal consequences – and this is not normal. There is no rational explanation for why criminal proceedings worth billions have been “hanging” for years. ”

Dmytro Koziatynskyi announced that the same protest would be planned for tomorrow night, July 23, at the same time.