The press service of Chernihiv Oblast’s prosecutor’s office on Feb. 26 confirmed to the Kyiv Post that they had sent an e-mail to National Public Television and Radio Company asking them to place ads touting Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko’s alleged achievements.
The ads have been criticized by Lutsenko’s opponents as being a brazen effort to promote his political career.
The Chernihiv Oblast prosecutor’s office press service said it considered the commercials to be “public service ads” because they had been declared to be such by the National Television and Radio Council. The council did not respond to a request for comment.
Daria Yurovska, a program director at National Public Television and Radio Company, told the Detector Media news site on Feb. 23 that she had received a letter from Chernihiv Oblast’s prosecutor’s office asking her to place the ads, but that she had refused to do so because they contradict the company’s advertising policy.
The ads have been shown on other major commercial television and radio stations in Ukraine.
Lutsenko himself indirectly acknowledged being behind the ads in a Feb. 22 interview with the Levy Bereg news site.
“There’s the notion of informing society. This is one of my duties,” he told Levy Bereg when asked about the ads. “Society should know not only the lies of those who cover up for embezzlement, but also the state agency’s official standpoint.”
Next day, however, the Prosecutor General’s Office went into denial.
Lutsenko’s PR advisor, Oleksandr Cherevko, would neither confirm nor deny the prosecutor’s office involvement in producing the ads, while the Prosecutor General’s Office told the Ukrainska Pravda news website on Feb. 23 that the General Prosecutor’s Office “did not produce or order the videos that are currently being broadcast on TV and radio.”
“At the same time, the Prosecutor General’s Office is grateful to those who uploaded these videos because they showcase our positive work,” Lutsenko’s spokesperson Larysa Sargan was quoted as saying.
When asked to explain the discrepancy between Lutsenko’s Feb. 22 statement and their own Feb. 23 statements, Sargan and Cherevko did not respond to the Kyiv Post.
The compilation of the videos aired by a number of TV channels in February highlighted the prosecutor general’s office work.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Association, a little-known non-governmental organization, said on Feb. 26 that it had produced and placed the ads for the Prosecutor General’s Office.
“We are surprised at the speculation around the public service ads on television and radio devoted to the Prosecutor General’s Office,” the NGO said. “… We have reached the conclusion that the Prosecutor General’s Office can only complete its criminal cases if it receives strong support from Ukrainian society.”
The NGO has been accused of being a front for Lutsenko, used by him to promote his political ambitions, which it denies.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Association has also sided with Lutsenko by recently accusing Finance Minister Oleksandr Danyliuk of corruption. Danyliuk has been in conflict with Lutsenko and has called for his resignation.
The NGO’s office is located at 18-V Academician Tupolev Street, right next to the office center of Lutsenko’s son Oleksandr on 19 Academician Tupolev Street.
One of Lutsenko’s alleged achievements about which he boasted in the ads was the confiscation of money and state bonds worth $1.5 billion linked to Serhiy Kurchenko, an ally of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych by a Kramatorsk court in March.
The ruling was made secret but it was published in January by Al Jazeera. Independent lawyers argue that the ruling fails to provide legal grounds for the confiscation and may lead to Ukraine returning the funds to the offshore firms involved.
Meanwhile, investment bank ICU, headed by the president’s personal banker Makar Paseniuk and ex-National Bank of Ukraine Chief Valeria Gontareva, served as a broker for Kurchenko’s schemes, according to the ruling. ICU denies accusations of wrongdoing but Poroshenko’s critics argue that its involvement is the reason why the court ruling was made secret.
