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.
Corruption has long stymied Ukraine
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?
Comments