Latest news with #Nabu
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why Zelensky reversed his anti-corruption overhaul
On Tuesday, Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved a law to gut Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies. On Thursday he backtracked, and said he would put forward new legislation to restore their independence. The original legislation would have stripped both the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (Sapo) of their independence, bringing them under direct executive control. The official reason for the legislation was to cleanse Ukraine's investigative bodies of Russian influence. A spy, apparently, was suspected in their ranks. But treason has become the calling card for the consolidation of power in Ukraine. Earlier this year, Petro Poroshenko – President Zelensky's main declared challenger in the next election – was sanctioned for high treason, effectively barring him from running for high office. Ukrainians have had enough. With Donald Trump warming to his Ukrainian counterpart after their bust-up in the Oval Office, the 'rally-around-the-flag' effect that recently buoyed Zelensky – after months of sagging poll numbers – has now dissipated. The legislative coup provoked the largest demonstration since Russia's invasion in 2022. Many read it as creeping authoritarianism, marked by increasingly staccato punctuation. Even in international media that reliably lionises Zelensky, stories are beginning to percolate about the monopolisation of power, the use of lawfare to sideline political opponents, the harassment of civil society and a growing crackdown on dissent. Yet Tuesday's institutional hijacking was an escalation, considering what is at stake. Nabu and Sapo were originally established as a condition for western support after Russia's invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014. Donors needed assurances that funds would not be siphoned off, viewing accountability as essential for maintaining domestic backing for their aid packages. The IMF predicated its bailout programmes on Ukraine's anti-corruption commitments, and western capitals have repeatedly linked continued support to efforts to root out graft. At a time when European governments are struggling to cover the shortfall left by President Trump's withdrawal of US aid, the implications for international support could be severe. Before this week's legislation, Ukraine's anti-corruption community was under pressure. Earlier in July, Ukrainian authorities raidedthe home of the country's leading anti-corruption campaigner without a warrant, accusing him of draft evasion and fraud. Then, on the eve of the vote, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) – long seen as a tool for political enforcement – carried out 70 raids on Nabu and Sapo staff. They ransacked their offices and arrested a lead investigator. But as Ukrainians know – and western diplomats will privately concede – the problems within Nabu run deeper. The agency has long been accused of operating under the influence of the presidential administration and Zelensky's éminence grise, chief of staff Andriy Yermak. Nabu has been variously criticised for ineffectiveness, for steering clear of presidential allies, or conversely, for being used as a tool of political persecution. It begs the question what changed. The threads lead back to the case of Oleksiy Chernyshov, a former deputy prime minister, a close ally of the president, who was charged with corruption last month. Nabu had long been accused of toothlessness when it came to investigating those close to power. But the consequence of baring its teeth has been its defanging. For some time, Chernyshov's case was rumoured to have been quietly manoeuvred out of investigation by the pliant head of Nabu, Semen Kryvonos. Last year, a court issued a warrant to search Chernyshov's residence in connection with alleged corruption in 'Big Construction' – Zelensky's flagship infrastructure programme, known locally as the 'Great Theft'. But the search was never executed, reportedly at Kryvonos' request. Kryvonos himself owed his previous post to the backing of both Chernyshov and Yermak. The inner circle, it seemed, would remain safe under his tenure at the agency – a role he was appointed to despite having no background in anti-corruption. It was only after internal pressure within Nabu eventually forced Kryvonos to act on Chernyshov. It confirmed what many had long suspected – that the President's office exercised quiet control over the institution. The moment that control looked in doubt, its independence was shut down. For western partners, the balancing act of funding Ukraine while withholding public criticism has collapsed. The G7 ambassadors have released a statement confirming they had met with Nabu and now 'have serious concerns and intend to discuss these developments with government leaders'. Corruption has long stymied Ukraine. It was the thrust behind the Maidan protests: the call to expel the oligarchs that controlled the country without accountability. It made Ukraine vulnerable to invasion in 2014 in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It propelled Zelensky himself to political power as an outsider who could sweep away graft. Still, more Ukrainians now see corruption as a greater threat to the country's development than Russian aggression. Many of Ukraine's western partners have justified their support as a defence of democracy against corrupt autocracy. Even with Zelensky's backtracking, with the dismemberment of Ukraine's independent institutions, many will now legitimately ask: whom, and what, are they funding?
Spectator
5 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Can Ukraine forgive president Zelensky?
For six years in office, Volodymyr Zelensky never experienced the raging crowd beneath his window. But Ukraine's wartime president grew too powerful, too confident, bathing in the unwavering support of Ukrainians in the face of a greater evil. He overstepped. When Zelensky signed the bill stripping the anti-corruption institutions of their independence, he assumed Ukrainians would look the other way. They didn't. Protests against the law swept through the country. He did well to listen – and back down. But the damage to his image in Ukraine – and abroad – may now be beyond repair. On the third day since thousands took to the streets – after a cardboard sign declaring 'My father didn't die for this' was held aloft in front of him – Zelensky finally introduced a counter-law intended to cancel the scandalous one that had destroyed the independence of Ukraine's key anti-corruption bodies. Ukrainian lawmakers will return from their outrageous four-week holiday to vote on it in parliament. 'It is important that we maintain unity', Zelensky said. 'It is important that we respect the position of all Ukrainians'. The tape will rewind one week, and Ukraine's anti-corruption agency, Nabu, and the office of the anti-corruption prosecutor, Sapo, will continue investigating politicians regardless of their status. But questions will linger. What was it all for? What was the reason for this political suicide? There is no evidence of Zelensky's personal involvement in corruption, but the same cannot be said for those who share his office. In parliament alone, at least 17 MPs who voted for the scandalous bill have been suspected of corruption by Nabu. But most importantly, the bureau cast its eye over appointees linked to Zelensky's right-hand man, Andriy Yermak: Pavlo Kyrylenko, the current head of the Anti-monopoly Committee, suspected of illegally enriching himself by nearly £1 million, and Oleksiy Chernyshov, deputy prime minister, allegedly involved in a corruption scheme that cost the state more than £17 million. Both deny the claims. According to Holos MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak, Yermak was the mastermind behind the bill. Zelensky was persuaded that Nabu's digging into people around him had gotten out of control, harming his ratings. He thought that Ukraine's allies would swallow it without protest. In less than a day, the bill passed the Verkhovna Rada to the cheers, laughter and applause of 263 MPs, some of whom were under investigation by the very institutions they had just voted to destroy. By evening, nothing could stop Zelensky from signing it: not the pleas from the Ukrainian public gathered in front of his office in Kyiv, nor the appeals from G7 ambassadors, nor phone calls from French president Emmanuel Macron and Antonio Costa, European Council president. The pace was unprecedented for a president known to let dozens of draft laws gather dust on his desk for months. Appalled Ukrainians, including Zelensky's most avid supporters, saw this move as a blatant attempt by the government to steal and avoid accountability. They saw their blood-earned chance to join the EU snatched from under their noses by the very man they had stood behind for over three years of full-scale war. They watched as European and American allies began to question their continued financial support for Ukraine. The unwritten agreement – to set politics aside and focus on the common enemy, Russia – was broken. Zelensky, who still enjoyed 67 per cent public trust according to a recent Rating Group poll, was the one to crack it. His feat of staying in Kyiv and rallying the world behind Ukraine's cause when Russia invaded has now been stained. Even when this shameful law is scrapped, that stain will be impossible to wash off.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Anti-corruption agencies endorse bill restoring their independence
The Ukrainian anti-corruption body, Nabu, said a new bill submitted to parliament on Thursday 'restores all procedural powers and guarantees of independence of the Nabu and Sapo'. Nabu investigates corruption cases and Sapo prosecutes them. A Nabu statement said both agencies took part in the preparation of the new law and they urged the parliament 'to adopt the president's initiative … in its entirety as soon as possible. This will prevent threats to criminal proceedings brought by the Nabu and the Sapo.' The EU welcomed Volodymyr Zelenskyy's move to reinstate the independence of the anti-corruption agencies after the shock adoption this week of a bill that stripped their autonomy. After protests on the streets and from international allies of Ukraine, the Ukrainian president said the further bill would ensure the rule of law and the independence of the anti-corruption agencies. An EU spokesperson said: 'We provide significant financial support to Ukraine and this is conditional to progress and transparency, judicial reform and democratic governance.' Those points were reinforced by European leaders with whom Zelenskyy consulted over the crisis, including Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz of Germany and the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. There were tensions over the Ukraine war as EU officials met the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in Beijing on Thursday. Antonio Costa, the European Council president, said the EU officials discussed 'at length' their expectations for China to discourage Russia in its war against Ukraine. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, prior to the meeting said China was 'enabling Russia's war economy'. Xi told EU to 'properly handle differences and frictions … The current challenges facing Europe do not come from China.' A Russian attack killed three family members already displaced by the war, authorities announced on Thursday. The father, mother and son had fled to the village of Pidlyman in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine after Russian forces invaded their home town. A strike later on Kharkiv city wounded 33 people, including a 10-year-old girl, a 17-year-old boy and girl, the governor said. A separate Russian drone and missile barrage wounded seven people including a child in the central Ukrainian region of Cherkasy, emergency services said. The US state department on Thursday said it had approved military sales worth US$330m to Ukraine comprising $150m worth of maintenance, repair and overhaul capability for M109 self-propelled howitzers, and $180m to sustain air defences. The Pentagon said contractors involved would include BAE Systems, Allison Transmission, Daimler Truck North America, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Radionix and Systems Electronic Export. The US on Wednesday announced sales of $322m related to Hawk surface-to-air missiles and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. Reuters are reporting that an Indian company shipped $1.4m worth of an explosive used in missile warheads, rocket motors and bombs to Russia in December 2024 despite the threat of US sanctions, according to Indian customs data seen by the news agency. One Russian company listed as receiving the compound, known as HMX or octogen, was an explosives manufacturer, which Ukraine's SBU security service has linked to Moscow's military. An SBU official said Ukraine launched a drone attack in April against one of the company's factories. The US government has identified HMX/octogen as 'critical for Russia's war effort'. The US state department did not comment to Reuters on the specific shipments but said it had repeatedly communicated to India that companies doing military-related business with Russia were at risk of sanctions. However, under Donald Trump, Russia-related sanctions work has slowed to a trickle. India's foreign ministry said in a statement: 'India has been carrying out exports of dual-use items taking into account its international obligations on non-proliferation,' adding that such exports were subject to 'holistic assessment'.
BBC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Zelensky announces new draft law on anti-corruption bodies after protests
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he has approved the text of a draft law guaranteeing the freedom of two anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine - days after nationwide protests broke out over changes curbing their Western partners had also expressed serious concerns over the Thursday, Zelensky seemed to backtrack, saying the new bill was intended to safeguard the independence of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (Sap), and to protect them from Russian said the text of the bill was "balanced", but did not provide any details. The law passed earlier this week brought Nabu and Sap under the control of the prosecutor general, who is appointed by the the time Zelensky justified his decision to curtail the bodies' powers by citing Russian influence. The day before, Ukraine's security services had carried out searches and arrests targeting alleged Russian spies at the passing of the legislation instantly sparked the largest protests since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 in several cities across Ukraine, with many worrying the law would severely undermine the Nabu and Sap's authority and of people gathered in streets and squares across Ukraine, holding placards calling for the legislation to be commentators accused Zelensky of democratic backsliding. Their concerns were further exacerbated when Ukraine's Western partners signalled their displeasure with the bill. Ukraine has official EU candidate status and a spokesman for European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen previously warned Kyiv that the rule of law and the fight against corruption were "core elements" of membership to the bloc. On Thursday, the Commission said it "welcomed" the Ukrainian government's decision to take action against the bill. "We are working [with the Ukrainian government] to make sure that our concerns... are indeed taken into account," the spokesman and Sap were created in 2014-15 as one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund to move towards a relaxation of visa restrictions between Ukraine and the on Facebook, opposition MP Oleksiy Goncharenko noted Zelensky said that "the independence of anti-corruption institutions must be guaranteed.""First we take it away, and then we say that it must be guaranteed. So why was all this necessary?"In his message on social media on Thursday, Zelensky did not acknowledge the protests or the backlash but said it was "important that we respect the position of all Ukrainians and are grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine."
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Why are Ukrainians angry with Zelenskyy? Because even during wartime, some red lines must not be crossed
For quite some time, foreign colleagues have been asking me about Ukraine's democracy during wartime. Often these questions assume that political freedoms vanish by default in a country at war. They ask whether protests or critiques of the government are even possible. Ukraine is a democracy at war – and democracy itself is an existential matter. It is precisely what the country is fighting for. My usual answer has been: 'The people will know when it's time to protest.' They will sense when too much power is being concentrated in security services, when parliament's role is being bypassed, when the prime minister or members of parliament are no longer acting independently. Ukrainians, I would say, will know when red lines are crossed. This week, many decided that such a red line had been crossed. On Tuesday thousands of people gathered in Kyiv to protest and call on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto legislation they believe undermines the independence of two key anti-corruption institutions: the national anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office (Sapo). The protest was largely youthful – many would have been kids during the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Their chants included 'Veto the law!' and 'No to pressure on independent institutions'. Despite martial law, only two policemen were stationed nearby. The atmosphere was even cheerful. It was by far the largest protest since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Similar demonstrations took place in approximately 10 Ukrainian towns. And yet late that very night, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law. What shocked many was not just the content of the legislation but also the speed and manner in which it was pushed through: passed within a day, as an amendment hidden inside unrelated law enforcement reforms, and then signed and published almost immediately. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion, Ukrainians have demonstrated an extraordinary level of unity and civic responsibility. Citizens also showed renewed faith in the institutions of the state – even those long viewed with suspicion. People were willing to look past imperfections, to suspend criticism, and to focus on survival and victory. That is why there has been no serious internal push for wartime elections, despite foreign commentary. Elections – expensive, risky and constitutionally prohibited during war – are widely understood by Ukrainians to be unfeasible under current conditions. But this is different. This law has become a litmus test of whether public trust in the government can be sustained. And more than that, whether the unwritten social contract – between citizens and the state – still holds. The law adopted by Ukraine's parliament – formally known as draft law 12414 – includes sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the authority of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies. The prosecutor general now holds expanded powers over Nabu and Sapo – including control over investigations, case access and team composition, and the authority to shut down cases or transfer them to other law enforcement bodies. The vote took place just one day after the security service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted searches at Nabu's offices, and Ukraine's state bureau of investigation (SBI) filed criminal charges against three Nabu employees over car accidents that occurred in 2021 and 2023. These incidents raised eyebrows for their timing. According to Nabu, the new provisions 'effectively destroy the independence of Sapo and place both Nabu and Sapo under the control of the prosecutor general'. The bureau reminded lawmakers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure, built in partnership with international allies since 2015, was a key precondition for western financial and political support. As institutions, Nabu and Sapo are not without flaws. Government representatives – both formally and off the record – have raised concerns about politicised investigations, poor coordination with other law enforcement agencies and even alleged infiltration by individuals sympathetic to Russian interests. The quality of investigations has also been criticised. Some probes have dragged on for years without result. Others, including cases against prominent business figures or former officials, have been accused of selective prosecution. There are also persistent rumours that Nabu investigations have touched individuals close to Zelenskyy himself. What makes this even more complex is that these institutions are tied to Ukraine's commitments for EU membership. And yet European integration – while deeply valued by Ukrainians – is no longer something the EU itself appears eager to actively advance. That makes it even easier for outside partners to use moments like this to distance themselves, to quietly say: 'Maybe Ukraine isn't ready after all.' But the deeper issue is this: none of Ukraine's law enforcement institutions are ideal – not during wartime, and arguably not before it. But Nabu and Sapo remain the most trusted parts of a law enforcement system long plagued by corruption and impunity. They were created not to be dismantled when they become inconvenient. The protesters are not defending a fantasy of flawless institutions but the principle that reform must not be replaced by control. Protests are likely to continue. The government will have to respond. Yes, there is war. But in a democracy there is a constitutional way forward: the law can be rescinded, amended, debated transparently. This cannot be fixed by one late-night briefing from the head of the security service or the newly appointed prosecutor general – nor by a photo opportunity where Zelenskyy stands alongside the heads of all law enforcement bodies. It requires real, public consultation. The demonstrators in Kyiv this week are sending a message. If there were questions about what the limits of government power during war should be, they were answered on Tuesday. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab
