The head of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Oleksandr Tupytsky, accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of putting pressure on his court and of attempting a “constitutional coup.”
Zelensky is leading an effort to disobey and annul the Oct. 27 ruling of the Constitutional Court that effectively destroyed Ukraine’s entire asset declaration system for state officials, eliminating a crucial pillar of the country’s anti-corruption system.
Zelensky, in an unprecedented move, registered a draft bill to fire the judges of the Constitutional Court through parliament and annul their scandalous ruling. Meanwhile, the government ordered the restart of the declarations registry, ignoring the court’s ruling.
On top of that, on Oct. 30, in one of the biggest street protests of recent months, hundreds of people rallied near the court, demanding that the judges resign.
In a two-hour press conference on Oct. 30, Tupytsky denied allegations of misconduct by his court and accused the president of putting pressure on the judiciary.
“President Volodymyr Zelensky’s law on the reform of constitutional law shows signs of a constitutional coup,” Tupytsky said during an Oct. 30 press conference.
On the same day, Constitutional Court judge Ihor Slidenko resigned, also citing pressure from the president. Slidenko was one of the judges who voted in favor of killing the online asset declaration system, despite having a conflict of interests – a discrepancy was found in his own declaration.
He remains at his post, as his resignation must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
“I received a call from the President’s Office and I was told that I was behaving incorrectly and I would have problems,” said Slidenko while announcing his resignation.
Zelensky spokeswoman Yulia Mendel said that the president didn’t call Slidenko.
Zelensky won’t comment on Tupytsky’s and Slidenko’s accusations, according to Mendel.
At least four of the 15 Constitutional Court judges have been subjects of investigations concerning wrongful information in their online asset declarations. By ruling the declaration system was unconstitutional, they saved themselves from responsibility.
According to Tupytsky, Zelensky’s bill violates the article of Ukraine’s constitution that states that Constitutional Court judges can only be fired by a vote of two-thirds of the Constitutional Court.
Tupytsky’s defense
Tupytsky claims that the president and his party are preparing a constitutional coup that calls the independence of Ukraine’s judiciary into question.
The bill is expected to be considered at the Nov. 3 session of parliament.
“On Nov. 3, the parliament, through a decree or a law, will cancel the decision of the Constitutional Court. Additionally, they will fire Constitutional Court judges,” says Tupytsky.
“Why not by a direct presidential decree? Why invoke the parliament into such an unconstitutional job,” says Tupytsky, implying that both of these actions are illegal.
According to Tupytsky, the president is trying to use the parliament to escape responsibility for illegal actions.
“I hope he won’t go that way,” says Typytsky.
He added that he won’t resign to solve the ongoing constitutional crisis.
“Look at the decisions in cases that the court has ruled on. They’re all scandalous. We have more scandalous cases ongoing and (Zelensky) doesn’t want us to rule on them,” says Tupytsky, either implying that the court is deliberately issuing questionable rulings or he was talking about high-profile cases drawing substantial interest and misspoke.
But anticorruption watchdogs say that, without reforming the court system, the judiciary will never be independent in the first place. They also accuse Constitutional Court judges of using their constitutional immunity to pass unlawful rulings.
Other government officials agree.
“The approach of the bill is based on the fact that the legislation has created a disgusting trap — any reset of the Constitutional Court requires the consent of the Constitutional Court itself, which blocks control over its activity and an effective response to its abuse and corruption,” Justice Minister Denys Malyuska said on Oct. 30.
On Oct. 30, the State Investigation Bureau opened an investigation into Tupytsky for treason. Earlier, investigative journalists from the Schemes project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty found that Tupytsky owns a land plot in Crimea, which is occupied by Russia since March 2014.
Tupytsky acquired the land plot in 2018 and registered it in accordance with Russian law.
“I didn’t declare (my property in Crimea) because I don’t know how to do it,” Tupytsky said at the press briefing.
Killing anti-corruption
The cases that Tupytsky was referring to as scandalous were initiated by pro-Russian lawmakers meant to dismantle most of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.
This will undermine Ukraine’s relationship with international financial institutions and European Union countries who have invested billions of dollars into Ukraine’s fight against corruption.
On Sept. 16, the Constitutional Court ruled that some provisions of the law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) were unconstitutional, stalling the work of Ukraine’s most credible anti-corruption agency. On Oct. 27, the Kyiv Administrative District Court led by notorious judge Pavlo Vovk ruled that Artem Sytnyk, head of NABU, must be fired.
Vovk and members of his court were investigated by NABU and charged by the Prosecutor General’s Office with organized crime, usurpation of power, bribery and unlawful interference with government officials.
In August, the NABU placed them on a wanted list.
Oleksandr Tupytsky, chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (C), attends a hearing on June 23, 2020 in Kyiv. (Kostyantyn Chernichkin)
A day later, another case sparked an outcry among anti-corruption watchdogs: The Constitutional Court ruled to dismantle the online asset declaration system.
On Oct. 28, the court ruled that these powers were unconstitutional and also canceled penalties for lying in officials’ asset declarations.
The National Agency for Preventing Corruption (NAPC) said that Constitutional Court judges Iryna Zavhorodnya and Serhiy Holovaty had a conflict of interest but voted for the decision, which is banned by the law.
Both judges had thousands of dollars of undeclared assets.
The NAPC also said that Constitutional Court judges Slidenko and Volodymyr Moisyk had failed to declare changes in their assets on time, which is a misdemeanor.
Furthermore, the court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, established in 2018 to prosecute officials for corruption.
“If we say that the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine is a special court, then it’s unconstitutional, if we say that it’s a specialized court then I don’t see problems,” says Tupytsky.
The vague framing of most Ukrainian laws gives the Constitutional Court a formal reason to sink almost any legislation.
In an October interview with BBC’s Hardtalk, Zelensky bragged about launching the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, which made its first ruling in October 2019. Now, the court’s existence is under question.
The plaintiffs in all three cases to the Constitutional Court — on Sytnyk, asset declarations and the High Anti-Corruption Court — are lawmakers, most of whom are part of the 44-member pro-Russian Opposition Platform – For Life party, which is led by Viktor Medvedchuk, a close friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin is Medvedchuk’s daughter’s godfather.
Still, Tupytsky defended his court’s rulings.
“(The government) has a desire to have a predictable court, which will respond (to the government),” said Tupytsky.
“We need a judicial reform, but only in a constitutional way,” he added.
There’s one problem: To reform the Constitutional Court, the parliament must amend the constitution, which requires the consent of the Constitutional Court led by Tupytsky. It’s doubtful that the court will agree.
