Tetyana Chornovol, the Ukrainian government’s corruption-fighting commissioner, has had a bumpy road accomplishing her mission of eradicating the nation’s cancerous disease of graft. Her frustration has spilled over as she complains about facing nothing but obstacles in fulfilling her monumental task.
Speaking at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center on June 3, Chornovol accused the Ministry of Justice as well as Transparency International Ukraine – a major corruption watchdog – of belonging to a “political mafia” that has frustrated her efforts to stamp out corruption.
“All the country believes I am in charge of fighting corruption (while) it is the Justice Ministry and … (Deputy Minister Ruslan) Ryaboshapka who have the power and legal mechanisms to fight corruption in Ukraine,” she said.
“Have you ever heard Ruslan Ryaboshapka instigate any investigation or start any campaign against government corruption, against the (ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s) family?” said Chornovol, whose journalistic investigations contributed much to uncover highly dubious schemes used by Yanukovych and his inner circle.
The Justice Ministry did not respond to her charges.
Ryaboshapka has been the official head of anti-corruption efforts at the Justice Ministry since 2011, when Yanukovych was still in power. Chornovol, who was savagely beaten in an attack linked to Yanukovych, was appointed to her unenviable post on March 5, with plans to create an anti-corruption bureau. So far, Chornovol’s bureau doesn’t have official status. That’s why on April 18 she submitted a bill through the Batkivshchyna party faction in parliament to get legal recognition.
A rival bill also was submitted on April 24, drafted by a coalition of civil society experts, including those from Transparency International Ukraine as well as Vitali Klitschko’s Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms.
According to UDAR’s bill, the chief corruption fighter would be chosen competitively, whereas Chornovol’s version makes that position an appointment. Earlier, Transparency International-Ukraine said the new office head should have legal credentials, but the group has since withdrawn that condition.
There are other differences between the two bills: Chornovol’s draft places the office under the National Security and Defense Council; in the rival version it reports to the Cabinet of Ministers. Chornovol’s draft exclusively targets graft in the public sector; in the civil society draft there is some private sector jurisdiction.
Regardless of its structure, Ukrainian legal experts are skeptical. “By itself, an anti-corruption office won’t solve the corruption issue. Legislation like this can provide mechanisms to fight corruption, but not to fight the system,” says Vitaliy Gren, a laywer and anti-corruption activist.
International organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption, called GRECO, support the concept of an anti-corruption office.
“In Ukraine, many law enforcement bodies – too many – have an anti-corruption mandate. This resulted in fragmentation. They’re all going after small fish, when we all know the fundamental problem is high-level corruption,” said Olga Savran, manager of OECD’s anti-corruption network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Independence from high-level political pressure, accountability to both the prosecutor’s office and the public, and legally established investigative and procedural powers are crucial for the bureau’s activity, according to Savran. “This should be a professional process – not a partisan one,” she concluded.
Oleksandr Lemenov, a lawyer with the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, said that “Chornovol and others are essentially working in the absence of an appropriate legislative framework.”
Chornovol drafted a resolution with the Cabinet of Ministers on May 16 altering procedures related to state seizure of assets connnected to the Yanukovych “family,” the ex-president’s inner circle. Currently, the law lets the government offer seized assets to private corporations through competitive bids. Chornovol’s resolution would allow seized assets to be turned over only to public enterprises. However, the Justice Ministry redrafted this part of the resolution on June 6 to have confiscated assets go to private companies, without notifying the public about the change, said Chornovol. “It’s one thing if this property is a car, but if it’s a refinery, plant or a gold mine, that’s something else,” she explained, while sharing her suspicions about private firms with connections to Justice Ministry officials who could benefit from this change.
Corruption fighter Tetyana Chornovol has criticized the Justice Ministry and Transparency International Ukraine in their anticorruption efforts.
In turn, the Justice Ministry said that its position was supported by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Chornovol and Olena Tyshchenko, her advisor on anti-corruption policy, criticized Oleksiy Khmara, head of Transparency International in Ukraine, who they claimed is not affiliated with the Berlin-based Transparency International, a corruption watchdog with global reach.
“First of all, there is no Transparency International in Ukraine. But (Khmara) has used this brand for many years,” Tyshchenko told the Kyiv Post. “From what we know, he just submitted his documents, and they’re being reviewed by Transparency International in Berlin. So to me it isn’t really honest to take this brand if he doesn’t have relations with it.”
Olena Kifenko, a spokesperson for Transparency International-Ukraine, denied these charges. She says that the Ukrainian office became a national chapter of Transparency International in 2012.
Meanwhile, a representative from Transparency International’s Berlin office clarified that Transparency International-Ukraine is “a national chapter in formation” – the last step taken before an organization becomes a full-fledged chapter. The group is authorized to use the organization’s name and logo, the Berlin headquarters said.
