The commission for choosing the chief anti-corruption prosecutor is facing mounting accusations that it is vetoing the best and most independent candidates for the job on false grounds and backing dubious and controversial candidates.
One contender withdrew to protest what the former candidate called arbitrary and unlawful decisions.
The commission did not respond to a request for comment. During one of its meetings, commission members denied the accusations.
The commission for choosing the chief anti-corruption prosecutor consists of four experts delegated by international organizations and seven members chosen by parliament. At least two international experts and five parliamentary members are required to approve a candidate.
From May 31 to June 25, the selection commission interviewed 29 candidates and vetoed 26 of them. One candidate – Ihor Semak – withdrew, and two candidates – Oleksandr Klymenko and Andriy Synyuk – advanced to the next stage. Eight more candidates have yet to be interviewed by the commission.
Candidates’ statements
Semak, an anti-corruption prosecutor, withdrew his candidacy on June 24.
“Some commission members are acting arbitrarily and do not comply with any objective criteria,” he argued in his statement. “It’s ironic that some commission members lag far behind (these candidates) in terms of ethics and professionalism. These commission members pretend to be moral or other authorities without having any legal or factual grounds for that.”
He said that some anti-corruption prosecutors and detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) had been vetoed by the commission “based on made-up excuses” in an unfair manner.
Another candidate, Ivan Smily – a former NABU detective – was also vetoed by the commission on June 25. He shared Semak’s opinion about the selection commission.
“Candidates that you are vetoing are decent people,” he told the commission members. “Today you interviewed Roman Symkiv. I believe him to be one of the best candidates. And even if you had complaints about me, I didn’t hear any complaints about him. The chief anti-corruption prosecutor’s office must work (properly) and not listen to orders from the prosecutor general.”
Symkiv’s candidacy
On June 25, pro-government members on the selection commission vetoed anti-corruption prosecutor Roman Symkiv, triggering an uproar.
Smykiv was backed by all international members of the commission, and anti-corruption watchdogs have consistently praised him for professionalism and independence and argued he meets all integrity standards.
“(President Volodymyr Zelensky’s deputy chief of staff Oleh) Tatarov‘s commission members vetoed one of the most effective anti-corruption prosecutors, Roman Symkiv,” Vitaly Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center’s executive board, said on Facebook. “He’s the one who went after Tatarov and (notorious Judge Pavlo) Vovk and Co. from the Kyiv District Administrative Court… The commission members did not discuss his integrity after the interview, they did not voice a single complaint against him.”
Tatarov, who has been charged with corruption, handpicked pro-government members of the commission, according to a May 13 report by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s investigative program Schemes. Commission members either know Tatarov personally or are connected to him, Schemes reported. He did not respond to requests for comment.
Apart from Tatarov and Vovk, Symkiv has spearheaded high-profile corruption cases against ex-lawmakers Mykola Martynenko and Oleksandr Onyshchenko, ex-State Fiscal Service chief Roman Nasirov, smuggling suspect Vadym Alperin and lawmaker Oleksandr Yurchenko from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party. Symkiv has also been praised by Swiss prosecutors and the International Association of Prosecutors.
Previously other candidates seen by anti-corruption watchdogs as independent and professional were also kicked out of the selection process. These include Olena Krolovetska, the head of a NABU unit, anti-corruption prosecutors Serhiy Kozachyna and Andriy Perov, former top investigator Sergii Gorbatuk and several NABU detectives.
Sinyuk’s candidacy
One of the two candidates who passed to the next stage, Andriy Sinyuk, has been criticized by anti-corruption watchdogs. He has been a prosecutor since 2010 and is a direct subordinate of Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova, which may raise questions about his independence.
Civic watchdogs still doubt Sinyuk’s integrity.
In 2015-2016 Sinyuk and his family did not declare any property that he owned or used. He argued that he lived at various relatives’ houses and did not have to declare his place of residence under the law. However, the Anti-Corruption Action Center still believes that such behavior is dubious.
Sinyuk has also used his father-in-law’s apartment in Kyiv with a declared value of Hr 1.32 million. The Anti-Corruption Action Center says that market prices for such apartments are double that price.
Andriy Hudzhal, a commission member from the pro-Kremlin Opposition Platform-For Life party, lavished praise on Sinyuk, and pro-government commission members unanimously backed him.
Shabunin argued on Facebook that the President’s Office would try to make sure that Sinyuk becomes the chief anti-corruption prosecutor.
Olena Shcherban, a legal expert at the Anti-Corruption and Action Center, told the Kyiv Post that the Security Service of Ukraine is negotiating a deal with some of the candidates in exchange for loyalty to the authorities, according to the watchdog’s sources. Currently Sinyuk is 17 points behind Klymenko, and the authorities will have to push him hard to make him the winner, Shcherban added.
The Security Service of Ukraine and the President’s Office did not reply to requests for comment. Previously the President’s Office denied involvement in the selection process.
Previous developments
On June 4, international experts vetoed Andriy Kostin, a member of parliament from Zelensky’s ruling 244-member Servant of the People party. Kostin was seen as the government’s preferred candidate for the job of chief anti-corruption prosecutor.
After the veto on Kostin, pro-government members on the selection panel blocked panel meetings, and they were only resumed on June 23 under public and international pressure.
If the winning candidate does not suit the authorities, they may stop the selection process through a court decision or delay it indefinitely, the Anti-Corruption Action Center said.
Oleksandr Kareyev, a candidate who has been vetoed by the selection commission, has already filed a complaint against the commission with the Kyiv District Administrative Court, headed by notorious judge Vovk. The court accepted the lawsuit for consideration.
