See a related story here.
Reformer of the week – Denys Bihus
Investigative journalist Denys Bihus from the Nashi Hroshi television show and anti-graft watchdog has become one of the anti-corruption crusaders targeted by Ukraine’s ruling kleptocracy.
Like all others having anything to do with fighting corruption, he had to file an asset declaration by April 1.
President Petro Poroshenko, the People’s Front and their allies have failed several times to deliver on their promise to cancel the Russian-style authoritarian disclosure requirements for anti-graft activists.
The draconian disclosure requirements were similar to Russian dictator and war criminal Vladimir Putin’s foreign agent law targeting NGOs, which was imposed in 2012.
The National Agency for Preventing Corruption has said that any individuals who get funds or provide services as part of anti-corruption programs must file electronic declarations identical to those of government officials. This applies to any suppliers and service providers of anti-corruption NGOs (including cleaning service providers) and anyone who obtained pens, food or presentation materials as part of anti-corruption programs, including even foreign ambassadors who attended anti-corruption events.
The NAPC also said that even those who have attended offline or online anti-corruption courses must declare their assets.
Under Western pressure, the NAPC on March 29 issued an interpretation that limited the category of anti-corruption activists who must file declarations. However, the NAPC’s statement contradicts its own previous statements and the law, and anti-corruption activists who are outside this category can still be prosecuted for e-declarations regardless of its statement, Rouslan Riaboshapka, a former top NAPC official, said on March 30.
At the same time, the case into alleged large-scale corruption at the NAPC has seen no progress. In November, NAPC top officials Hanna Solomatina and Oksana Divnich accused their agency of large-scale corruption and being controlled by Poroshenko.
In March Oleksandr Pysarenko, the NAPC’s acting chief of staff, filed a report effectively confirming the whistleblowers’ position. He said top NAPC officials, including Oleksandr Skopych, could have committed crimes including abuse of power and failed to report officials’ failure to file declarations and violations in asset declarations.
Anti-reformer of the week – Tetiana Veselska
Tetiana Veselska, a member of the High Qualification Commission of Judges, is under investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine over alleged unlawful enrichment.
According to the NABU, cash worth Hr 777,689 and real estate worth Hr 1.781 million in her asset declaration cannot be explained based on her income. She denies the accusations.
Veselska’s declaration is also being checked by the National Agency for Preventing Corruption. Moreover, a complaint has been filed with the High Qualification Commission on allegedly incorrect information in Veselska’s declaration on integrity and relatives.
Due to these factors, Veselska may have a conflict interest and there are doubts that she is capable of assessing judges objectively, according to the Public Integrity Council.
Meanwhile, the Kyiv District Administrative Court is considering a case into the alleged falsification of documents submitted by Taras Lukash, a member of the High Qualification Commission, for his appointment.
Another High Qualification Commission member, Tetiana Shylova, has violated judicial ethics by acquiring a government apartment free of charge despite having enough money to buy an apartment, the Public Integrity Council said.
Yet another member of the commission, Yuriy Titov, committed an administrative infraction in 2017 by failing to declare a change in his assets on time, according to the National Police.
Ten of the commission’s 15 members represent the judicial old Soviet guard, having worked at state agencies since the 1980s. Five of the commission’s members started their careers in the Donbas, home base of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych’s clan, while two of its members come from Vinnytsya, President Petro Poroshenko’s political base.
Four of the commission’s members have worked in Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt police and prosecution services.
Meanwhile, the Public Integrity Council, the judiciary’s civil society watchdog, suspended its work in March because the High Qualification Commission had blocked its operations. The Public Integrity Council said it would not participate in what it believes to be the fake vetting of judges that is being carried out by the High Qualification Commission.
During the first stage of the ongoing vetting of all judges (testing), which started in November, only about 0.2 percent of 990 judges failed to pass vetting, compared to 40 percent of judges who failed to pass tests during the Supreme Court competition.
During the second stage of vetting (interviews), which started on March 23, the High Qualification Commission interviewed nine judges in just one-and-a-half hours.
The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology, according to the Public Integrity Council. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court, said Vitaly Tytych, a Public Integrity Council member.
The judiciary’s governing bodies deny the accusations.
During the Supreme Court competition testing, 90 points were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests and 120 points for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 points without giving any explicit reasons, Tytych argued. Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 points for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts), Tytych said.
