Since its establishment in December 2015, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has faced criticism for its limited success in securing legally binding verdicts in criminal cases involving high-ranking officials. According to Volodymyr Bogatyr, a prominent lawyer and Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, NABU’s performance has been underwhelming, with almost no final convictions against members of parliament, heads of central executive authorities, or judges.
Bogatyr shared his insights in a blog post on “Ukrainska Pravda,” citing official data from NABU. He analyzed the bureau’s activities using open-source information on registered criminal offenses and the outcomes of their pre-trial investigations, as published by the Office of the Prosecutor General.
Despite there being 148 criminal cases where individuals were served with notices of suspicion, only 27 of these cases were sent to court with indictments. Meanwhile, 71 cases were closed, often due to the absence of criminal offense events or lack of elements constituting a crime. Bogatyr highlighted that this discrepancy paints a realistic picture of NABU’s effectiveness, with only about 18% of investigated cases reaching the court, while 48% are closed.
Bogatyr emphasized that the fight against corruption does not end with pre-trial investigations. The ultimate measure of effectiveness, he argued, is the number of verdicts based on prosecution arguments, as defined by Article 62 of the Constitution, which enshrines the presumption of innocence.
From January 2016 to May 2024, 63 members of parliament, 46 heads of central executive authorities (including ministers and their deputies), and 86 judges were served with notices of suspicion. However, the number of convictions remains negligible. Bogatyr contends that this gap between suspicions and convictions indicates a systemic issue where NABU detectives fail to substantiate charges in court.
He further suggested that the trends of suspicions against top officials are influenced more by political factors than legislative changes. The absence of convictions, he argued, could imply a political agenda behind NABU’s activities, using the bureau as a tool of pressure on the legislative and judicial branches.
Bogatyr also raised concerns about potential violations of the principles of separation of powers and the balance of power, emphasizing that such actions might undermine the integrity of anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
In related news, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) acknowledged having information about corruption involving a NABU detective but has not taken action. Additionally, Bogatyr previously commented on a scandal involving information leaks within NABU, questioning the effectiveness of reforms and international support, and the oversight of NABU’s activities.
