Some say Bill 12414 stripped Ukraine’s anti-graft agencies of their independence – but how?

On Tuesday, July 22, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada hastily passed a controversial bill to alter the jurisdiction of the country’s anti-corruption agencies in the name of curbing Russian influence, sparking protests nationwide at levels unprecedented since 2014’s Euromaidan – despite a wartime ban on demonstrations.

On Thursday, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that a new bill would be introduced to restore the agencies’ independence, but it remains uncertain whether the public will support it.

But what exactly was changed in Bill 12414 that led to such public outrage?

Understanding Ukraine’s anti-corruption independence 

To understand what was changed, one has to understand how Ukraine’s anti-graft system was designed to function.

There are three main institutions tasked with handling corruption cases against high-ranking officials: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC).

Prior to Tuesday, the agencies acted independently within the existing system – NABU investigated, SAPO prosecuted, and HACC heard the cases.

The system was created with the help of Kyiv’s Western partners to ensure its judicial independence and integrity in rooting out high-level corruption – a key criterion for Ukraine’s path to the EU.

What exactly does NABU do? 

NABU, one of the key agencies affected by the law, conducts pre-trial investigations into corruption among high-ranking officials.

As outlined by Transparency International, only corruption cases meeting certain criteria fall under NABU’s jurisdiction.

“NABU’s jurisdiction, or specialization of this body, includes specific corrupt criminal offenses, such as abuse of influence or laundering of proceeds from crime,” the website states.

One of the now-defunct pages on NABU’s site lists the nature of the crimes and the people under its jurisdiction.

According to Transparency International, cases must meet three main conditions for them to fall under NABU’s purview:

First, the amount involved – either the value of the crime or the damage caused – must meet a certain threshold.

Second, the person involved must be on a specific list of high-ranking officials, such as former presidents, lawmakers, ministers, judges, top prosecutors, or other category “A” officials with national-level powers.

The third condition is that a bribe or abuse of influence must involve someone from that official list – even if they didn’t commit the crime themselves.

Corruption cases failing to meet these conditions would be investigated by other law enforcement agencies such as the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) or the National Police, and prosecuted by the Prosecutor General’s Office or its subsidiaries.

Kyiv Post previously compiled a list of high-profile cases NABU has worked on.

What changed on Tuesday?

With the new bill, the Prosecutor General was given the authority to access and reassign NABU cases to other investigative agencies outside of the independent system.

Theoretically, this means cases against high-ranking officials can now be closed or reassigned to agencies like the DBR or the National Police – precisely the state apparatus anti-corruption reforms aimed to keep at arm’s length.

With the revision, the Prosecutor General can reassign NABU cases if they are deemed “ineffective.”

“The Prosecutor General (the person performing his duties) has the right to entrust another pre-trial investigative body with the pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses classified as subject to the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine in the event of an ineffective pre-trial investigation or in the presence of objective circumstances that make it impossible for the relevant pre-trial investigation body to function…” a rephrased paragraph under Article 36 now states.

Under revisions in Article 37, which concerns the appointment and replacement of head prosecutors, the Prosecutor General now also has the authority to assign a replacement for the head of SAPO when the latter becomes unavailable for a case.

Multiple revisions also indicate a transfer of authority from SAPO to the Prosecutor General.

Under Article 216, NABU’s authority to take on cases overlapping with other agencies’ jurisdiction now requires approval from the Prosecutor General instead of SAPO; a paragraph on SAPO’s ability to “resolve disputes” on NABU’s cases was also removed from Article 218.

Incidentally, one of the revisions also changed the basis on which law enforcement can enter properties without a court order.

With revisions to Article 233, the “urgent need [for] the seizure or preservation of evidence” becomes a new basis for “an investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor” to enter properties without a court order – an addition that might or might not be tied to the raids on NABU and SAPO’s offices on Monday over Russia espionage concerns, where NABU voices concerns over sensitive case leakage.

Why is that a concern? 

There are two main issues: The way the bill was passed, and why it was introduced in the first place.

The bill was passed in lightning speed and bypassed the first reading by incorporating the amendments inside a seemingly unrelated bill submitted months ago.

Normally, a bill is submitted to the Verkhovna Rada, passes through a first and second reading, then is signed by the speaker and, finally, by the president to become law, taking weeks, if not months, after its inception.

Critics have questioned why it was pushed so quickly.

Just a day prior, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), alongside DBR officers, raided NABU and SAPO’s offices as they alleged they had identified strong links between two senior NABU officials and Russia. Both were subsequently arrested on Tuesday, the day the bill was passed.

While Zelensky said the need to curb Russian influence is why the bill was rushed, opposition lawmaker Oleksiy Honcharenko suggested a more sinister motive behind the move.

A few weeks earlier, NABU issued a suspicion notice against Zelensky’s close confidant, former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, for fraud. Honcharenko suggested the recent developments were a retaliation against NABU and SAPO for that.

“Could NABU staff have collaborated with Russia? Possibly. But the SBU’s interest in NABU only emerged after the Chernyshov case. Remember when the former Unity Minister didn’t want to return to Ukraine?” Honcharenko wrote on .

Other critics also questioned whether curbing Russian influence justifies such a drastic move.

“There were enough high-profile investigations and important cases. If NABU really had Russian agents, it’s good they were found – sad that it took this long. But that’s no reason to demolish an entire institution,” lawmaker Inna Sovsun wrote.

Ramifications for Ukraine

For the thousands of Ukrainians who flooded the streets in protest despite a wartime ban, the move might also jeopardize Ukraine’s dream in Europe.

Multiple allies of Kyiv have raised concerns over the bill.

“The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU’s independence is a serious step back,” EU’s enlargement commissioner Marat Kos wrote.

“Effectiveness of these institutions is an important part of Ukraine’s path to the EU,” the bloc’s ambassador to Ukraine, Katarina Mathernova, wrote on following her Wednesday meeting with Zelensky.

On the bright side, following Zelensky’s vow to push a new bill to restore the independence of NABU and SAPO on Thursday, EU Spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker said the bloc viewed the move positively.

“We welcome that action, and indeed we work with them to make sure that these concerns regarding the fight against corruption, which is an extremely important priority for us and for Ukraine as well, are indeed correctly addressed,” he said.