Already this Thursday, Ukraine can become a day of a big test. Parliament will decide on the bill, by which the President of Volodymyr Greeny, is trying to alleviate the turbulence that has triggered the disputed law restricting the existing status of two anti -corruption institutions.
The law, which subordinated these bodies to the General Prosecutor’s Office, encountered a wave of criticism of Ukrainian civil society and international partners. It is not only a change in legislation, but also the way it has occurred at all.
MEPs submitted it for negotiations without any social discussion. The President then signed it a few hours after the vote, although he had 15 days to assess the impact of the law. Ruslan Kravčenko, General Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was reportedly not known for the upcoming legislation amendment, who learned about what Parliament actually approved from social networks.
Although Zelenskyj has included a reverse and prepared a bill that the National Anti -Corruption Office and the Specialized Anti -Corruption Prosecutor’s Office are returning their original status, now is how deputies deal with it.
In the meantime, some of those who voted for the law acknowledged that they took a step beside.
“I made a mistake. I feel personal responsibility and I am not looking for excuses,” wrote the deputy from the Servant of the People’s Servant.
“Yes, I think that voting for (law) 12414 was a mistake,” said Serhij Step, who wrote, among other things, was convinced that he was convinced that foreign partners were aware of the accelerated vote.
“Mistakes should be acknowledged. They will be drawn conclusions so that it will never happen again,” Vasyľ Mokan, MP, on the social network.
MEP Mariana Bezuhlová, a well -known critic of Ukrainian generals, even came directly among the people who protested against the law last week. They were welcomed by chanting the word shame in front of the Ivan Frank Theater, where protests are held. Bezhlová told TV that she had come to hear the counter -arguments of those who were against legislative change.
“I can’t ignore what is happening,” she said, adding that she supports the law. “There is a clear supervision of the prosecutor and the number of law enforcement authorities should be reduced,” she added.
Although some of the deputies finally poured ash on their heads, some civil society officials told them that this was not a mistake.
“No, this is not how it doesn’t work. You can’t ‘apologize’ for something that undermines the confidence (people) in the state during the war. On the front, a mistake means death. Even in parliament. Slow but inevitable – (death) of statehood, reform, future,”
The first big crisis during the war
Political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko talks about the first serious internal political crisis during the war.
“It seems to me that there were no consequences in the Presidential Offis – internal or international. That our international partners critically income.
According to him, politicians will now have to find a way out of the crisis. It could become voting for the aforementioned presidential law.
It abolishes the subordination of anti -corruption institutions to the General Prosecutor, who, according to the currently valid criticized legislation,, for example, acquired the power to take the investigators of the anti -corruption unit and move them to other authorities. According to the presidential proposal, the Attorney General will no longer be able to give written instructions to the investigators of the National Anti -Corruption Office (NABA). They will be obliged to fulfill the instructions only from the prosecutor of the specialized anti -corruption prosecutor’s office.
For example, a novelty in the bill is that employees of both anti -corruption bodies and the General Prosecutor’s Office or the State Office for Investigation, and the others will have to undergo a lie detector test every two years.
“I think they vote for the presidential law, because in this case there is a possibility to get more votes as opposed to alternative (proposals),” Fesenko said.
However, the political scientist Mykola Davyďuk does not see it similarly clearly. “Playing it in front of the camera that we are ready, we want, we support, is one thing, but whether this desire will be factual, this is a very open question,” he commented for.
If the law did not pass, according to him, Zelenskyj could blame the parliament for failure.
Will they add to the fire?
The question mark is also written about the approval of the law is also written by the Financial Times. The daily points out that the parts of the Members from the People’s Servant are not proposed by the President’s proposal and is allegedly afraid that they will seek anti -corruption authorities. According to FT, 70 deputies should have expressed similar concerns. The reason for their concern was said to be the statements of the head of the specialized prosecutor’s office Oleksandra Klymenko, who said in one of the interviews that they collect information on the circumstances of adoption of the first bill.
“We will create chronology of events second after a second and analyze everything,” Klymenko told the web.
However, spokeswoman for the People’s Servant Julija Palijčuková denied that some of the deputies would refuse to vote for a green proposal. “Our faction supports the presidential law. The information that 70 MEPs do not have to vote is not true. I do not understand where this number has taken from,”.
We will add that a few days ago the civil movement has published the number of Ukrainian deputies investigated by the anti -corruption bodies and who also voted for the disputed law – there are 24 deputies suspected of committing a crime. According to Cesno, most suspicions concerned bribery, false statements, unlawful enrichment or abuse of influence.
Political scientist Fesenko warned that as long as the deputies are the law to decide on Thursday, torpedo – for example, by not coming to the vote – even more to the fire.
Historian Pavlo Haj-Nysnyk notes in this context that talking about revolutionary moods in Ukrainian society is still premature, but according to him, the manifestations of arbitrariness that the Ukrainians observe are beginning to “squeeze into the explosive mixture”. “It is not so much about a recent decision (president), as a accumulation of all previous problems and steps from power,” he said in an interview with the daily.
The end result of the vote would not only have to launch a new wave of dissatisfaction of the Ukrainians. A major problem for the Greenland office would also be a stopping of the financial assistance of Brussels. According to the website, the European Union warned Kiev that, unless it is corrected, Ukraine could lose a significant part of financial support.
Activists ask for renewed transmissions from parliament
So, on the eve of the approval of the Presidential Act, the Ukrainian civil society asks that Parliament renew the broadcasting of plenary meetings.
The Česno movement, which came up with this requirement, that this is a basic condition of transparency, especially when laws are approved by laws affecting the reform of the fight against corruption as well as the international support of Ukraine.
“The company should be able to see in real time how MEPs vote and what opinions they express publicly. We live in conditions of great distrust and social tension. Transparency is not a formality, but the basis of the parliament confidence,” the activists wrote. More than 50 organizations and media were added to their call.
The broadcasting of meetings of the Ukrainian Verch Council was suspended at the beginning of the Russian invasion. These were mainly security reasons. One of the arguments was that Parliament could also discuss sensitive information that could reach the opponent.
One restriction was already canceled last year by journalists. Media staff did not have access to the parliament building for more than two years. Entry to parliamentary lobbies eventually allowed them in May 2024.
Investigation on the top floors
Although the President himself, in the case of the need for changes in legislation in terms of anti -corruption authorities, argued, for example, the need to get rid of their possible Russian influences, some Ukrainian media and green critics give a sudden need to change their status to the investigation of high -ranking officials and persons close to the President.
For example, Naba started an investigation against the Minister of National Unity Oleksija Černyš. He himself rejects the allegations of committing corruption behavior.
According to the sources of the Ukrainian Truth, investigators were also preparing an accusation against Tymur Mindič – it is a former business partner and a friend of Volodymyr Zelenský.
Subsequently, the daily also brought information that the viewfinder of the anti -corruption unit may also be the former deputy head of the presidential office Rosthlav Šurma, who today lives with his family in Germany. Investigators in cooperation with the German police 15 July searched Šurm’s residence in Munich and secured his phone.
According to the Surma House for the President, they were supposed to be “one of the last drops”.
