Article by ALI for Ukrainska Pravda
On 22 July 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine supported Draft Law No. 12414, which dismantles the autonomy of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the procedural independence of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Yet the problem runs much deeper — this undermines the independence not only of these bodies but of any prosecutor in Ukraine. Rumours about the ‘dismantling of the anti-corruption system’, which the country had been building for over a decade, have become a reality. Symbolically, the draft law was submitted on 16 January — the country is, for the second time, effectively reverting to a centralised system of ‘manual control’ over the prosecution service reminiscent of Viktor Yanukovych’s rule.
Draft Law No. 12414, which initially had a purely humanitarian aim — to facilitate the search for persons missing under martial law — was rapidly transformed into a threat to key post-Revolution of Dignity achievements. News of the added amendments appeared late on the night of 21 July. According to sources from the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, the meeting of the Committee on Law Enforcement took place in turbo mode at 08:40 on 22 July — what was approved remains unknown. Just before that, at 08:23, MP Maksym Pavliuk was granted authority as Acting Chair of the Committee.
Not without controversy, but just as swiftly — Parliament passed the proposed amendments by an overwhelming majority. As a result, the state has demonstrated an unwillingness to fight corruption effectively and impartially, while European integration, as well as the trust and support of international partners, has been cast into doubt.
Immediately after the vote in Parliament, NABU and SAPO issued a statement calling on the President to veto Draft Law No. 12414. The Agency for Legislative Initiatives supports this statement and demands an urgent response from Zelenskyy. International partners have also unanimously expressed concern over Ukraine’s deviation from reform. It is likely that the Head of State will sign the law before this column is even published. Regrettably, we have not witnessed such speed even when it came to draft laws concerning the country’s defence capability.
Officially for War, Unofficially for Power Usurpation
The amendments to Draft Law No. 12414 formally concern the specifics of pre-trial investigation under martial law. However, their true scope extends far beyond these boundaries. Some provisions are being enshrined permanently, while others will remain in force for three years after martial law is lifted — that is, for an indefinitely long period.
According to Draft Law No. 12414, the Prosecutor General is granted virtually unlimited powers: to requisition any criminal proceeding, transfer it to another prosecutor, and issue binding written instructions. The principle of NABU’s ‘exclusive investigative jurisdiction’ is being abolished, and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office is stripped of its independence. All of this — without competition, without checks and balances, without safeguards. These approaches are not new to Ukrainian history. They directly echo the model of the Prosecutor General’s Office during the Yanukovych era, when a single office could determine the fate of any case, and the prosecutorial hierarchy functioned as a tool of political influence rather than justice.
SAPO and NABU: Reforms No Longer Protected
Following 2014, the establishment of the independent anti-corruption bodies — NABU and SAPO — became a symbol of Ukraine’s European choice. They were created with the involvement of international partners, strict selection procedures, guarantees of independence, and a clear focus on specialisation. The cases they handle concern high-ranking officials — from heads of state-owned enterprises to ministers and judges. The same can be said about the prosecution reform — the powers of the Prosecutor General were significantly curtailed to ensure that the position would no longer be a subject of ‘political bargaining’.
Draft Law No. 12414 dismantles these guarantees. In particular:
- The Prosecutor General will be able to transfer NABU’s cases to other bodies — for instance, the National Police or the SBI;
- The head of SAPO will lose the exclusive authority to approve notices of suspicion for top officials and other exceptional procedural powers;
- The powers of case allocation and procedural oversight may be transferred to lower-ranking prosecutors — effectively under instruction.
This marks a return to a system where decisions are made for convenience rather than legality. And while anti-corruption reform was, until recently, one of the most successful aspects of Ukraine’s transformation, it is now being deliberately and systematically dismantled.
Abandoning the Principles of the Rule of Law Under the Guise of Military Necessity
Can martial law justify changes to criminal procedure? Yes, a certain degree of flexibility is necessary. However, draft law No. 12414 is not limited to temporary regulation. It enshrines a prosecutorial hierarchy above the law and concentrates key powers in the hands of a single official. All safeguards against this — developed after the Revolution of Dignity, including through the creation of an ‘anti-corruption infrastructure’ — are being dismantled.
Of particular concern is the provision allowing special-status suspects (ministers, MPs, judges, etc.) to appeal directly to the Prosecutor General to have a case closed after it has been closed against any one of the other parties involved. This transforms the institution of pre-trial investigation into a tool for backroom deals — echoing practices that Europe has deemed incompatible with a democratic state.
A 180-Degree Turn Away from European Integration
The anti-corruption infrastructure has been — and remains — one of the key elements in negotiations with the European Union. The establishment of an independent NABU and SAPO was a precondition for visa liberalisation, macro-financial assistance, and candidate status. Therefore, the country cannot afford to backtrack at a time when European integration is no longer merely a political choice, but a strategic necessity.
Draft Law No. 12414 could result in both the suspension of accession talks with the EU and the discontinuation of financial aid. Moreover, it represents a point of no return — both for the prosecution reform and for the overall architecture of the rule of law in Ukraine. Today, the country has lost not only its anti-corruption institutions but also the trust it had so painstakingly built since 2014.
What will Zelenskyy choose? To return to models that once plunged the country into a deep political crisis — all to protect his allies, Mindich and Chernyshov. Or to veto Draft Law No. 12414 and continue building an independent anti-corruption infrastructure aligned with EU standards.
We hate to tempt fate, but it seems the next target will be the High Anti-Corruption Court.
