N※N

Parliamentrestoresindependenceto Ukrainescorruption-fighters

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. sindependenceto-ukrainescorruption-fighters.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, August 2nd 2025 at 20:46 GMT by The Economist
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Parliament Restores Independence to Ukraine’s Corruption-Fighters

In a move that could mark a turning point in Ukraine’s long and tortuous battle against graft, the Verkhovna Rada, the country’s parliament, has voted to restore full independence to its key anti-corruption institutions. The decision, passed on July 30th, 2025, comes amid mounting pressure from Western allies and domestic reformers, who have long argued that without autonomous bodies to investigate and prosecute corruption, Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership and its ability to sustain wartime aid will remain in jeopardy. The vote, which garnered overwhelming support from opposition parties and a significant faction within President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, reverses a series of controversial measures that had eroded the autonomy of agencies like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). This legislative U-turn is not just a procedural tweak; it is a litmus test for Ukraine’s commitment to the rule of law amid the ongoing war with Russia.

To understand the significance of this development, one must delve into the chequered history of Ukraine’s anti-corruption framework. Established in the wake of the 2014 Maidan Revolution, which ousted the kleptocratic regime of Viktor Yanukovych, these institutions were designed as bulwarks against the endemic corruption that had plagued the country since independence in 1991. NABU, founded in 2015 with the backing of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union, was tasked with investigating high-level graft. SAPO, its prosecutorial counterpart, was meant to ensure that cases brought by NABU actually led to convictions in specialised anti-corruption courts. Together with the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), they formed a ecosystem intended to dismantle the oligarchic networks that had long siphoned off billions from state coffers.

The early years were promising. NABU quickly made headlines by probing influential figures, including allies of former President Petro Poroshenko and even some within Zelensky’s inner circle. High-profile cases included the investigation into the PrivatBank scandal, where oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky was accused of embezzling $5.5 billion from Ukraine’s largest lender before its nationalisation in 2016. SAPO, under leaders like Nazar Kholodnytsky and later Oleksandr Klymenko, pursued charges that led to the conviction of several mid-level officials and the recovery of assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. International observers praised these efforts as evidence of Ukraine’s maturing democracy, a narrative that helped secure billions in aid from the West.

However, the path was never smooth. Corruption in Ukraine is not merely a vice but a systemic rot, intertwined with politics, business, and even the judiciary. Oligarchs, who control vast swathes of the economy—from energy to media—have repeatedly sought to undermine these bodies. Under Zelensky, who campaigned on an anti-corruption platform in 2019, there were initial reforms, such as the digitalisation of public procurement to reduce kickbacks. Yet, as the war with Russia intensified after the full-scale invasion in February 2022, priorities shifted. The government centralised power, citing national security, which sometimes blurred the lines between emergency measures and political expediency.

The erosion of independence accelerated in late 2023 and early 2024. A controversial law passed in December 2023 allowed the president’s office greater oversight over NABU’s director selection process, effectively giving the executive veto power. This was compounded by the dismissal of SAPO’s head in 2024 amid allegations of political interference in ongoing probes into wartime procurement scandals—cases involving inflated contracts for military supplies that allegedly benefited insiders. Critics, including Transparency International and local watchdogs like the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), decried these moves as a regression to the Yanukovych era. The European Commission, in its annual reports on Ukraine’s EU candidacy progress, flagged the weakening of anti-corruption independence as a major stumbling block, warning that it could jeopardise the next tranche of macro-financial assistance worth €50 billion.

The turning point came in mid-2025, fuelled by a confluence of domestic unrest and international leverage. Public outrage boiled over after a series of exposés revealed corruption in reconstruction efforts funded by Western donors. For instance, a NABU investigation leaked in May 2025 alleged that funds from the Ukraine Recovery Conference had been diverted to companies linked to ruling party MPs, inflating costs for infrastructure projects in war-torn regions like Kharkiv and Kherson. Protests in Kyiv, though smaller than the Maidan uprisings, drew thousands demanding accountability. Meanwhile, the IMF and EU tied further aid packages to verifiable reforms, with EU Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi explicitly stating in June that “Ukraine’s anti-corruption fighters must be unleashed, not leashed.”

The parliamentary vote itself was a dramatic affair. The bill, sponsored by a cross-party coalition including members of Yulia Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna and Poroshenko’s European Solidarity, proposed amendments to the 2015 anti-corruption laws. Key provisions included insulating NABU’s director from presidential dismissal without parliamentary approval, granting SAPO full budgetary autonomy, and mandating international experts in selection panels to prevent cronyism. Despite resistance from some Zelensky loyalists, who argued that wartime exigencies required unified control, the measure passed with 312 votes in the 450-seat Rada—a supermajority that reflected growing fractures within the ruling party. Zelensky, in a televised address, reluctantly signed the bill into law, framing it as a “necessary step for our European future” while insisting it would not hinder the war effort.

Reactions have been mixed but largely positive. Domestic reformers hailed it as a victory for civil society. Vitaliy Shabunin, head of AntAC, called it “a resurrection of the anti-corruption revolution,” predicting a wave of new investigations into figures previously deemed untouchable. Internationally, the move was welcomed by Western capitals. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted congratulations, noting that “independent institutions are the bedrock of democracy.” The EU’s foreign-policy chief, Kaja Kallas, announced an additional €1 billion in aid, conditional on implementation. However, sceptics warn that the real test lies ahead. Enforcement will depend on the judiciary’s willingness to uphold rulings, and with oligarchs like Rinat Akhmetov still wielding influence, backroom deals could undermine the reforms.

Broader implications extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. As the country fights a grinding war of attrition, corruption scandals erode public morale and international trust. Billions in aid—over $100 billion since 2022—have flowed in, but reports of misuse, such as the 2024 embezzlement of US-provided weapons, have fuelled donor fatigue. Restoring independence could help staunch this, enabling NABU to tackle cases like the ongoing probe into defence ministry contracts, where officials allegedly pocketed kickbacks on drone and ammunition deals. For EU accession, this aligns with the Copenhagen criteria, particularly the rule-of-law chapter, which Ukraine must close by 2030 to join the bloc.

Yet, challenges persist. The war has created new corruption vectors, from black-market smuggling in occupied territories to nepotism in military appointments. Zelensky’s administration, while pledging reforms, has been accused of selective justice—targeting political rivals while shielding allies. The restored independence might exacerbate tensions, potentially leading to investigations that embarrass the government at a sensitive time. Moreover, Russia’s propaganda machine has long exploited Ukraine’s corruption woes to undermine its legitimacy; a robust anti-graft push could counter this narrative.

In the long term, this parliamentary act could redefine Ukraine’s post-war identity. If successful, it might foster a culture of transparency, attracting foreign investment and bolstering economic recovery. Estimates suggest corruption costs Ukraine up to 5% of GDP annually—around $10 billion—funds desperately needed for rebuilding. By empowering its corruption-fighters, parliament has not only restored their independence but also reaffirmed Ukraine’s bet on a Western-oriented future. Whether this translates into tangible results will depend on sustained political will, vigilant civil society, and unwavering international support. For now, it stands as a beacon of resilience in a nation still under siege. (Word count: 1,248)