The Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) faces significant challenges in conducting its investigations, especially when it comes to searches of deputies. It recently became known that NABU detectives expressed a desire to obtain the right to conduct searches without prior approval from the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, which gives rise to serious discussions and questions about the legal aspects of this step.
Foreign experts conducted an audit of NABU activities for the period from 2021 to 2023. In their report, they indicated that they identified several limitations on the powers of detectives in order to improve the effectiveness of their work.
In particular, NABU detectives complain that they cannot start an investigation into the possible corruption of people's deputies of Ukraine only on the basis of the permission of the Prosecutor of the SAP, and they must also obtain the approval of the Prosecutor General. Also, anti-corruption officers cannot search the premises of people's deputies, apply for temporary access to banking information about them and take other measures without the approval of the Prosecutor General.
In addition, NABU detectives are not satisfied with the legal restrictions on their use of certain undercover means and operational tools.
However, the question arises whether consent to investigative actions is really an obstacle to effective NABU investigations. After all, detectives have long been "famous" for high-profile denunciations of high-ranking officials, but in order to prove their "denunciation" sometimes they don't even have ten years.
At the end of May, NABU got into a scandal - it became known about the alleged disclosure of pre-trial investigation data by representatives of the bureau in the interests of allegedly businessman Yury Golyk, who is a figure in the anti-corruption investigation into "Big Construction".
Because of this case, NABU director Semyon Krivonos suspended his first deputy Gizo Uglava from performing his duties for the duration of the pre-trial investigation.
In addition, on June 20, there was another journalistic investigation about the alleged leak of data from NABU, in which the director of the bureau, Semyon Krivonos, appears.
After the scandals, people's deputies from the Verkhovna Rada's committee on anti-corruption policy called NABU director Semyon Krivonos to a meeting. However, he ignored the challenge, citing that it was premature to discuss the investigation into the alleged data leaks. After that, the deputies decided to hold an on-site meeting at NABU, but it is not yet known when it will take place.
International auditors have previously stated that the State Security Service examines cases for years, while NABU detectives can investigate them for decades.
And, as practice shows, the duration of the anti-corruption investigation does not affect its quality in any way, because "high-profile" NABU cases against high-ranking officials have repeatedly collapsed in the courts.
A clear example is the criminal proceedings against the former Minister of Infrastructure Volodymyr Omelyan. Both cases collapsed in the courts. As the former minister noted, NABU's criminal proceedings caused him significant reputational and financial losses. After all, for many years he was mentioned in NABU records as a minister against whom criminal proceedings were opened, which entailed, in particular, problems with banking institutions.
However, NABU and SAP did not officially apologize to the ex-minister for illegal criminal prosecution and damage to business reputation. This was done only by individual detectives in private conversations.
One of the recent "high-profile" cases, which NABU has been investigating for five years, is the case against the former Minister of Agricultural Policy, Mykola Solskyi. According to the version of the investigation, Solsky allegedly took possession of land plots in the Sumy region that supposedly belonged to the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences.
However, as it turned out later, neither he nor his family or affiliated persons have such lands. However, there are ATO participants to whom the state granted the right to their privatization. What exactly did Solskyi take possession of - NABU refused to specify. In addition, the detectives tried to "spill" the examination, which they themselves ordered and which, apparently, was supposed to testify to Solsky's innocence. However, the public accusations took their toll - Solsky left his position as minister.
