Ukrainian nongovernmental organizations and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, or NABU, on July 13-14 criticized European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s backtracking on the requirement that Ukraine set up independent anti-corruption courts in the country.
Juncker said at an EU-Ukraine summit on July 13 that President Petro Poroshenko had persuaded him that Ukraine should create an anti-corruption panel within the existing Supreme Court instead of establishing independent anti-corruption courts.
The crucial difference is that anti-corruption courts would be created via a transparent procedure with the help of foreigners to guarantee their independence and professionalism, while anti-corruption panels would be set up within Ukraine’s unreformed and politicized judiciary.
“President Juncker was clear: The fight against corruption is crucial and needs to be further accelerated and intensified,” the EU Delegation to Ukraine said in a statement to the Kyiv Post. “What matters is that an independent, efficient judiciary body with the necessary authority and resources to fight corruption is set up.”
The statement added that “how this judiciary body is called and set up is a matter of detail” and “what matters is the independence, efficiency and sufficient resources and authority that this body needs to have.”
Poroshenko’s critics dismiss this as an attempt by him to deceive the European Union and make sure that the courts that handle graft cases remain corrupt and dependent on him. The Presidential Administration did not respond to a request for comment.
“I think Poroshenko tricked (Juncker) during their dinner on Wednesday,” Daria Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Kyiv Post.
NGOs’ statement
The Anti-Corruption Action Center, the Reanimation Package of Reforms, Transparency International Ukraine, the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law, AutoMaidan and other Ukrainian NGOs made a statement about Juncker on July 14.
“We would like to appeal to Mr. Juncker with a proposal to meet with non-governmental organizations of Ukraine,” the NGOs said. “During this meeting we would like to explain in detail the risks and threats of establishing anti-corruption chambers (panels) in courts of lower instances.”
The civil society groups argued that “in order to preserve the successes of the previous three years of fruitful joint work and to achieve tangible results in the fight with corruption, it is crucial to introduce an independent judiciary mechanism, which is being decided now.”
“There will be no more second chances for the anti-corruption reform to succeed,” they said.
NABU response
The NABU also lambasted the rejection of the idea to create anti-corruption courts.
“Juncker’s statement that the EU believes it’s enough to create a special anti-corruption panel is a result of an intentional disinformation campaign that targets Ukraine’s European partners,” the NABU said in a statement on July 13.
If anti-corruption panels are established in the unreformed lower-level courts along with the Supreme Court’s anti-corruption panel, there will be no progress in corruption investigations, the NABU argued.
“The NABU believes that the creation of anti-corruption panels will not only fail to deliver court convictions of top corrupt officials but will also aggravate the problem,” the agency said.
Ukraine’s politically subservient and unreformed judiciary has been dragging its feet on NABU cases and has so far failed to achieve major convictions. The NABU has sent 75 criminal cases to trial since early 2016, and courts have not even begun hearing 23 of these cases.
Meanwhile, civic activists have lambasted Ukraine’s ongoing competition for Supreme Court jobs as rigged in favor of corrupt and pro-government candidates. The Presidential Administration and the judiciary’s High Qualification Commission deny the accusations.
The commission has so far overridden 75 percent of vetoes by the Public Integrity Council, the judiciary’s civil society watchdog, on 99 candidates for Supreme Court jobs deemed to be corrupt or dishonest. Candidates backed by the commission include inclumbent Supreme Court Chairman Yaroslav Romanyuk, who supported ex-President Viktor Yanukovych’s “dictatorial laws” of January 16, 2014, which cracked down on civil liberties.
Contradictions
Rebecca Harms, a member of the European parliament, disagreed with Juncker’s stance on anti-corruption courts.
“No need for an anti-corruption court in Ukraine?” she tweeted on July 13. “Surprised to read that Juncker agreed. I don’t know a good alternative… The NABU knows best why Ukraine needs an anti-corruption court.”
Juncker’s statement appears to be at odds with a statement in favor of anti-corruption courts made by the EU Delegation to Ukraine after the EU-Ukraine summit.
“Fresh impetus to strengthening the functioning and independence of anti-corruption institutions, such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the removal of the extension of e-declaration of assets to activists of anti-corruption NGOs, setting up a high anti-corruption court and ensuring transparency of the selection of judges to the Supreme Court, are vital,” the delegation said on July 13.
Juncker’s statement also contradicts ones earlier made in favor of anti-corruption courts by Johannes Hahn, the EU commissioner for European neighborhood policy and enlargement negotiations, and Hugues Mingarelli, the EU’s ambassador to Ukraine.
“Cases investigated and prosecuted by the NABU and the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office must be considered by anti-corruption courts,” Mingarelli told the Novoye Vremya magazine in a July 4 interview.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; Marie Louise Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; Davide La Cecilia, Italy’s ambassador to Ukraine, and Gianni Buquicchio, president of the Venice Commission, have also supported the creation of independent anti-corruption courts.
The creation of an independent anti-corruption court is also stipulated by Ukraine’s judicial reform legislation passed in June 2016 and by a memorandum signed by Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund in March.
