Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, opening the inaugural meeting of his new Council on Anti-Corruption Policy on Oct. 6, lashed out at practically all arms of government for abuse of power and corruption.
“We will create a very powerful system that will eliminate Soviet remnants and introduce new approaches to the formation of law enforcement bodies under European principles,” Poroshenko told the council.
But anti-corruption activists have heard all this before and they aren’t buying it.
Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the board of the Anti-Corruption Center, a civic watchdoog, slammed the president’s new initiative as “useless.” He said the nation had yet to see any major corruption convictions and officials have recovered a mere $376 – about Hr 8,000 – out of billions of dollars allegedly looted under previous governments.
While the kind of strategic thinking that the council was set up to engage might be in short supply in Ukraine, Shabunin told the Kyiv Post that the board was “nonsensical,” as any substantial anti-corruption measures would be proposed “by the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund.”
The new council is the fifth in a series of new bodies that have been set up in Ukraine since the 2013-14 EuroMaidan Revolution to assist law enforcement following the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Deputy Justice Minister Natalia Sevostyanova, speaking on Ukrainian television’s 112 Ukraina channel, defended the council’s role, saying that the board was intended to supplement the work of other bodies.
According to the head of the new board, veteran Crimean Tatar leader and lawmaker Mustafa Dzhemilev, the council hasn’t been granted any formal powers and its members are working on a voluntary basis. Functioning as an advisory board, the council was set up to propose future anti-corruption policies that will be based on foreign experience, he said.
Speaking to journalists after the first council meeting, Dzhemilev said it was crucial to “cleanse the nation of the dreadful disease of corruption.” Without such cleansing, Ukraine “could forget about the European Union,” he said.
However, he also said that the government bodies meant to combat corruption were often themselves the most corrupt, and that it wasn’t surprising that officials earning as little Hr 3,000 monthly take bribes.
He promised to step down if he doesn’t make a difference.
Dzhemilev said that he had already received phone calls from individuals offering him money in return for assisting them in fighting corrupt bureaucrats.
“It’s very sad,” he said.
Reacting to Dzhemilev’s comments, Shabunin shook his head in disbelief. “Why didn’t Dzhemilev report the bribe attempts?” he asked.
Shabunin agreed with Dzhemilev that relying on Ukraine’s firmly established but rotten law enforcement bodies has not proven effective – trigging the creation of new institutions.
“But this new council is merely a platform for the president to make nice speeches,” Shabunin said.
“If he really wants to combat corruption, he should ask parliament to get rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.”
However, at the inaugural meeting of his new advisory council, Poroshenko criticized practically everyone but Shokin.
Instead, the president said that prosecutors suspected of corruption shouldn’t be released on bail and that he had great hopes for upcoming court reforms.
He also complained that deregulation and privatization had proceeded far too slowly, and called for the current reform of the public prosecution to bring “new faces” to the service.
Meanwhile, business in Ukraine is getting impatient with the lack of progress made in stamping out graft.
Speaking at the launch of the new council, Andy Hunder, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, said corruption was a cancer on the economy. He said the situation was now critical, with 97 percent of AmCham members seeing corruption as the worst obstacle to doing business in Ukraine.
Hunder said he advocated the “PPP” approach to corruption – prevention, publishing – including naming and shaming the perpetrators – and punishment.
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” Hunder told the Kyiv Post. “So far, we have only seen progress in prevention,” he said, referring to the new Agency on Prevention of Corruption and the business ombudsman institution. “We need convictions to send the signal that corruption is punishable.”
But it would seem that Shokin’s office is still sabotaging justice instead of pursuing it. It emerged on Oct. 7 that investigators uncovering top-level corruption within the Prosecutor General’s Office had again themselves become the subjects of criminal investigations.
The criminal cases were earlier closed under pressure from the public.
But now one of the top prosecutors accused, Volodymyr Shapakin (nicknamed “the diamond prosecutor” for the valuables and jewelry found during a search of his office), has brought a court case contesting the closure of the cases against the prosecutors investigating him.
Reformist Deputy Prosecutor General Vitaly Kasko said that by re-opening the “totally unfounded” cases against investigators from his department, “senior officials” in the PGO would send a signal that those fighting corruption are the ones who will get in trouble – not those who are involved in corruption.
Meanwhile Shokin, who is widely believed to be the one stalling the prosecution of well-connected officials, met with U.S. ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt on Oct. 6 to assure him that “fundamental changes are under way in the prosecutor’s office,” according to a PGO statement.
Shokin also proposed that U.S. experts assist in the investigation of the case against the “diamond prosecutor,” and promised that the case would be sent to court soon.
Pyatt, in turn, stressed that the case should be investigated without any interference and in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, a statement from the U.S. embassy reads.
Kyiv Post staff writer Johannes Wamberg Andersen can be reached at [email protected]
