NABU and SAPO Independence Under Fire: What’s Really at Stake

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Many were irritated by the paradoxical and provocative tone of my posts about the “cardboard Maidan”. People expect sacred simplicity. I’ll try to be direct.

Is the relative independence of NABU and SAPO (as well as any other law enforcement agencies) from the political branches of government a blessing? Of course.

Can this independence be unconditional? No, because the laws governing these institutions are passed (and amended) by parliament, signed by the president, and their leaders are appointed by the executive branch. All these political bodies directly or indirectly derive their power from the people, who are considered sovereign in a democracy.

Did the president make a mistake by initiating, lobbying for, and hastily signing and publishing Bill No. 12414? No doubt about it. Things that are 100% certain are not done in a rush. The very style of this failed presidential “blitzkrieg” suggests that Bankova tried to push through a shady deal, presenting the country with a fait accompli.

Was it a good thing that people took to the streets to defend one of the last checks and balances against the power monopolized by Bankova? Without a doubt. When almost all government institutions have become extensions of the presidential office, any remaining checks and balances in the system are essential.

Does this make the anti-corruption vertical untouchable? Does this devalue the accusation against specific NABU employees? Definitely not. Anti-corruption agencies (like any others) must have appropriate oversight within the system of power. Therefore, I applaud the work of the SBU, which exposed the connections of individual NABU employees with the enemy. Law enforcement officers must keep each other accountable. But in no case should healthy competition turn into inter-institutional conflict.

More importantly, the protests reveal little understanding of the root causes of the chronic problems in Ukrainian statehood—namely, its flawed constitutional architecture. No NABU will compensate for the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the president, the lack of parliamentarism, the absence of a culture of rule of law, fundamental shortcomings in legal education, and the lack of judicial independence.

Public opinion often demands high-profile trials. If NABU succeeds, and the Supreme Court of Ukraine convicts figures like Mindich, Tatarov, or Yermak, the public will respond with enthusiasm. Anti-corruption activists’ approval ratings will rise sharply. However, this could weaken President Zelenskyy’s position, as the “Svinarchuk case” did with Poroshenko. In relatively peaceful times, such outcomes are positive; amid a major war, the consequences are less certain.

Therefore, I repeat: fighting corruption is not a cure-all. It is only one element of restoring Ukrainian statehood. It is not enough to simply remove corrupt elements—we must also strengthen the system and build sustainable governance.

Therefore, without establishing an effective balance of powers among the political branches of government, without reviving parliamentarian, without rethinking political rights as a privilege to be earned rather than a birthright, without creating a “chamber of communities” in parliament to represent local self-government, without a new ethos for the legal profession, and a fair and effective judiciary — the only safeguard against the usurpation of power will remain the street. The country’s only spectacle will be the hunt for top corrupt officials.

Meanwhile, the Russians will seize Ukrainian territories, kilometer by kilometer, the CCC will commit arbitrariness, law enforcement officers will exploit the population, people will flee abroad, and Ukraine will turn into a failed state.

The president hastily retreated, trying to shift the blame for the failed venture onto the parliament, which long ago became a rubber stamp for his office. Ukrainians defended one of the last strongholds not controlled by Bankova.

But the independence of NABU and SAP from the Prosecutor General is not a strategy of systemic transformation — something Ukraine desperately needs to avoid losing the war. Springboards are needed to go on the offensive. Yet, I fear the anti-corruption spectacle will be sold to the public as “systemic transformation.” Punishing corrupt officials is certainly important, but it cannot replace the transformation of Ukraine into an effective state through structural constitutional reform.

I hope this time I wrote simply and without provocation.

Also, follow “Pryamim” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.