NABU auditors announced they will conduct a selective review of the bureau, focusing solely on the period under the current director.

Foreign auditors from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) will conduct an effectiveness audit of the bureau only for the period from March 6, 2023, to November 18, 2024, which corresponds to the time when the current director, Semen Kryvonos, is in charge. Consequently, any violations committed by anti-corruption officials prior to 2023 will go unaddressed, according to UNN.

Details

The first external independent audit at NABU finally commenced on October 3. Recently, following public criticism, the auditors approved the criteria and methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the bureau.

"To confirm the period that will be covered by the evaluation (audit) of NABU's effectiveness, from the appointment date of the current NABU director to the date the commission approved the criteria and methodology for conducting the evaluation, specifically from March 6, 2023, to November 18, 2024," the auditors stated during their meeting.

This means that a significant time frame starting from the establishment of this agency, during which Artem Sytnyk and his first deputy Gizo Uglava were in charge, will be overlooked in the first audit. Uglava is currently accused of leaking information from the bureau and pressuring whistleblowers.

How many additional violations may have occurred during the period not covered by the audit is purely speculative, but it is evident that limiting the audit to recent years raises concerns about its comprehensiveness and objectivity. Ignoring the period when previous leaders headed NABU poses a risk of concealing systemic issues and abuses that could have affected the bureau's reputation and effectiveness.

An audit that would encompass the entire operational period of NABU since its inception would provide a more comprehensive and transparent assessment of the agency's performance and would help identify all possible violations and issues, regardless of when they occurred. After all, a selective approach to the review casts doubt on the true objectives and outcomes of this initiative.

Additionally

Recently, the public has raised numerous questions regarding the work of NABU detectives. Specifically, there are frequent claims about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine. This was notably stated by the recently dismissed first deputy director of the bureau, Gizo Uglava. He has repeatedly hinted that decisions within NABU are influenced by external factors rather than being based on the law. Among the individuals and institutions he named as exerting this pressure were activists from the Center for Combating Corruption (CCC) and the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, previously worked at CCC.

Uglava emphasized that actions against him indicate serious problems in NABU's investigative processes, which are aimed at achieving external goals rather than uncovering the truth.

This opinion is also shared by lawyers, who have claimed that the real objective of anti-corruption officials has shifted from fighting corruption to exerting pressure on certain public servants to achieve "external" goals.

Moreover, human rights defenders raise alarms about systematic violations of the presumption of innocence by NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors.

This has been noted, in particular, in the shadow report to section 23 "Justice and Fundamental Rights" of the European Commission's report on Ukraine for 2023, prepared by a coalition of public organizations. According to the document, in several court cases, judges observed violations of the presumption of innocence by NABU detectives, who in public comments and interviews effectively "declared" the subjects guilty.

Frequently, high-profile accusations against top officials by NABU ultimately result in acquittals. An example is the case of ex-minister Volodymyr Omelyan. He was accused of budget losses due to the reduction of port fees he implemented. However, in court, all arguments presented by the detectives and SAP prosecutors were completely dismissed as baseless. Notably, neither NABU detectives nor SAP prosecutors faced any public apologies to Omelyan or penalties for unlawfully bringing him to criminal responsibility.

A similar scenario could unfold with ex-minister Mykola Solskyi, who was accused in May of misappropriating land in the Sumy region for the benefit of ATO fighters. This case is already eight years old, reasonable investigation timelines have been exhausted, yet detectives chose to raise this issue only this year. Moreover, this occurred at a time when Solskyi was achieving results in negotiations with the Poles regarding the unblocking of the border.

However, available public materials indicate dubious evidence from the detectives, as evidenced by an expert report on manipulations with the expertise in this case. They attempted to "leak" and annul one of the reports through the court—presumably because such expertise indicated the ex-minister's innocence.