Editor’s note: Every week Kyiv Post journalist Oleg Sukhov picks a winner and loser in Ukraine’s drive to transform itself into a rule-of-law, European-style democracy.
Reformer of the week – Larysa Tsokol
Larysa Tsokol, a judge of Kyiv’s Pechersk Court, is one of the few judges in Ukraine who have demonstrated their independence from the authorities. But she has just been expelled from the ranks of the judiciary.
In December 2017, she released former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili from custody. The Prosecutor General’s Office had arrested Saakashvili and charged him with involvement in fugitive tycoon Serhiy Kurchenko’s criminal group for allegedly receiving money from the businessman to finance protests against then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Saakashvili sees the case as the result of Poroshenko’s political vendetta against him.
In a rare step for a Ukrainian judge, Tsokol completely rejected prosecutors’ arguments and ruled against the authorities. She said the prosecutors had failed to provide evidence to justify placing any restrictions on Saakashvili.
Tsokol ruled that Saakashvili’s detention by the Security Service of Ukraine, prosecutors and police without a court warrant and other legal grounds was unlawful. She added that the prosecutors’ decision to put Saakashvili on the wanted list was also unlawful.
Ten days after the arrest hearing, the High Council of Justice started considering one complaint against Tsokol in connection with her earlier rulings and two other complaints in July and August 2018. In October 2018 the council’s disciplinary chamber approved firing Tsokol over the complaints.
Tsokol appealed the decision, and the High Council of Justice changed it on June 5, 2019, suspending her for six months instead of firing and depriving her of her bonuses. Then Tsokol submitted her resignation, and the council dismissed her on June 11.
The Center for Policy and Legal Reform and the Public Integrity Council have described the council’s decisions on Tsokol as arbitrary and political payback for her ruling on Saakashvili.
Prosecutor Kostyantyn Kulik, who was in charge of the case, told the Kyiv Post that ex-President Petro Poroshenko had interfered in the Saakashvili case and tried to order prosecutors to investigate and arrest allies of the former Georgian president. Poroshenko’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.
Saakashvili has now returned to Ukraine. He arrived at Kyiv’s Boryspil International Airport from Poland on May 29, a day after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, restored his Ukrainian citizenship
Anti-reformer of the week – Valentyna Ustymenko
Roman Maselko, a member of the Public Integrity Council, on June 12 accused Valentyna Ustymenko and other members of the High Qualification Commission of not only covering up for corrupt judges, but also of rigging official procedures to that end. Ustymenko presided over a commission meeting on the qualification assessment of judges on that day.
The commission and Ustymenko did not respond to requests for comment.
Andriy Kozlov, a commission member, wrote that the commission had fallen short of the 11 votes necessary to override the Public Integrity Council’s vetoes of the employment of judges who do not meet integrity and ethics standards. As a result, the commission delayed its sessions to find the necessary votes.
The Public Integrity Council is a council of civil activists and experts analyzing the background of the judges, including their wealth and past verdicts. It gives its recommendations to the High Qualification Commission, which then votes to approve the judges to continue working, or fire them.
Maselko said that the commission had voted on overriding a veto of Judge Inna Gryban’s employment and failed. But, instead of firing the judge, the members just delayed the meeting to vote again.
Maselko accused the commission of thus falsifying the qualification assessment.
The Public Integrity Council has lambasted the commission for appointing judges tainted with corruption and using an arbitrary methodology that allowed the commission to appoint judges without explaining its reasons. The commission has denied accusations of wrongdoing.
