Fighting corruption in Ukraine

Foto: Yannick-Morelli/ shutterstock.com

Im Rahmen unseres Pro­jek­tes „Öst­li­che Part­ner­schaft Plus“ ver­öf­fent­li­chen wir eine erste Reihe von Input Papers zum Thema Korrup­ti­ons­be­kämpfung in der Ukraine, Georgien und Moldau. Die Autoren aus der Region (Kateryna Ryzhenko, Ion Guzun, Sandro Kevkhishvili) analy­sieren die Rolle der Europäi­schen Union bei der Unter­stützung der Korrup­ti­ons­be­kämpfung und formu­lieren Ihre Handlungs­emp­feh­lungen an die Entschei­dungs­träger in Berlin und Brüssel. 

By Kateryna Ryzhenko

In 2014, major anti-corruption reforms were launched in Ukraine. Political changes opened the country up to successful inter­na­tional experience, a beginning of syste­matic reforms and active engagement by civic society. Several key achie­ve­ments and reforms since then should be pointed out. Full-scale anti-corruption infra­structure has been created in Ukraine: over the past seven years, Ukraine has developed an anti-corruption infra­structure for the detection and inves­ti­gation of high-level corruption offenses and the punishment of those who commit them. The following “the classic elements” of this infra­structure are worth mentioning here:

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is a law enforcement body estab­lished in 2015 whose purpose is to conduct pre-trial inves­ti­ga­tions into top-level corruption cases and to cleanse the government from corruption in order to enable the formation and develo­pment of a successful society and efficient state. The Specia­lized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) is mainly respon­sible for supporting and overseeing criminal inves­ti­ga­tions launched by the NABU. All cases from NABU-SAPO are adjudi­cated by the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC). The launch of this court was one of the greatest anti-corruption achie­ve­ments in 2019.

In addition to the law enforcement and judicial bodies, the anti-corruption infra­structure includes two central executive bodies that have a special status: the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is respon­sible for the develo­pment of anti-corruption policy and prevention of corruption and the National Agency of Ukraine for detection, inves­ti­gation and management of assets received from corruption and other crimes (ARMA: Asset Recovery and Management Agency) was estab­lished with the aim of identi­fying, tracing and managing the relevant assets.

In addition to estab­li­shing anti-corruption insti­tu­tions, Ukraine carried out numerous reforms in different sectors involving the creation of regis­tries, digita­lization of processes and the opening of new possi­bi­lities for citizens and business. The most successful of these are:

  • Digita­lization and the imple­men­tation of new rules in the public procu­rement sphere – the electronic public procu­rement system ProZorro, which is based on the OCDS standard, is innovation that has garnered inter­na­tional attention. The system makes infor­mation on tenders available to everyone. Ukraine has won recognition around the world as a leader in procu­rement reform.
  • The electronic auction system Sale is used to for the liqui­dation of assets from insolvent banks, for small-scale priva­tization and lease of communal and state property. Now, when a public or municipal asset or property is being sold, everyone has the oppor­tunity to bid for it.

Productive coope­ration between the state, business and civic society organiza­tions made the imple­men­tation of the above­men­tioned reforms possible.

Obviously, not all efforts are going smoothly and/​or speedily. There are several challenges, and they must be addressed in the near future. The following are examples of issues considered problematic.

Proce­dures for selecting the heads of anti-corruption insti­tu­tions must be reassessed in order to eliminate possi­bility of political influence. Currently, the terms of the appoint­ments of the heads of the SAPO and the ARMA are not very long, which signi­fi­cantly limits their effec­ti­veness. A new compe­titive selection procedure for the position of the NABU director is slated to begin in less than a year, but parts of the legal provi­sions regulating this process have been declared uncon­sti­tu­tional by the Consti­tu­tional Court of Ukraine.

There is conti­nuing pressure on independent insti­tu­tions. For example, due to flaws in the legis­lation governing the prosecutor’s office and the limited powers of the acting head of the SAPO, the Prose­cutor General has been able to interfere repea­tedly in high-profile NABU-SAPO inves­ti­ga­tions, under­mining the indepen­dence of these insti­tu­tions. The Prose­cutor General did not pass up the oppor­tunity to study and even influence the procee­dings in the high-profile corruption cases of 2020. Securing an effective system of checks and balances that will ensure the indepen­dence of the anti-corruption infra­structure from adminis­trative and political pressure should therefore be a priority.

The unreformed judicial system remains the greatest threat to the sustaina­bility of reforms in all the areas. In fact, no progress has been made on judicial reform in the past two years. Last year, the President and Parliament tried several times to start a painful process of change. A first attempt at judicial reform, in the form of a draft law submitted by the President, had been adopted by Parliament in 2019, but key provi­sions of that legis­lation were declared uncon­sti­tu­tional by the Consti­tu­tional Court of Ukraine on 11 March 2020.

The next attempt to launch the reform was also initiated by the President in the form of several draft laws submitted to Parliament. Currently awaiting finalization and the second reading, they have been merci­lessly criti­cized by the Venice Commission and the expert community. A high standard of integrity on the part of members of self-governing judicial bodies, who are elected with the parti­ci­pation of the inter­na­tional community and civil society experts, remains a current requi­rement of the IMF, is the subject of a recom­men­dation of the Venice Commission and is demanded by the public.

In addition to the above­men­tioned issues, attempts to disrupt and nullify anti-corruption achie­ve­ments in the field of public procu­rement in the past several years also provide cause for concern. In parti­cular, both the Government and the Parliament are trying to amend the legis­lation and implement localization in public procu­rement, an approach which, according to researchers in the field, would drive the domestic economy into a dead end. Moreover, this initiative would violate commit­ments under­taken by Ukraine in the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and in the Agreement on Government Procu­rement within the framework of the WTO.

Which tasks should take priority?

Ensuring the indepen­dence and capacity of the anti-corruption infra­structure. Carrying out a trans­parent and politi­cally impartial process for the compe­titive selection of heads of anti-corruption insti­tu­tions. Securing an effective system of checks and balances ensuring the indepen­dence of anti-corruption infra­structure from adminis­trative and political pressure. Providing anti-corruption bodies with the legis­lative tools necessary for the full imple­men­tation of their functions.

Forming a profes­sional and independent judiciary. Electing (appointing) a fair compo­si­tionto self-governing judicial bodies with the parti­ci­pation of the inter­na­tional community and public experts. Submission to Parliament of a new compre­hensive draft law taking all the recom­men­da­tions from the Venice Commission on the reform of the Consti­tu­tional Court into account and the prompt conside­ration thereof.

Intro­ducing a system for the management of public assets that ensures trans­pa­rency and accoun­ta­bility and safeguarding the further develo­pment of the procu­rement sector. Disclosing infor­mation about state-owned enter­prises. Developing a new register of state-owned enter­prises as an acces­sible and conve­nient tool for visua­lization and search of enter­prises. Changing the legal framework for the management of state assets. Improving the areas of procu­rement in line with inter­na­tional commit­ments (refraining from adding to the list of contract types not falling within scope of the Law on Procu­rement). Ensuring effective control and monitoring of procu­rement by the State Audit Office.

What is the EU’s role in supporting the fight against corruption in Ukraine?

The European Union has been one of the main supporters of reforms in Ukraine in general and of the estab­lishment of anti-corruption legis­lation and insti­tu­tions in parti­cular. Combatting corruption was always a primary focus of condi­tio­na­lities attached to a number of macro-financial assis­tance packages and played a crucial role in the visa libera­li­sation action plan.

Every year the European Commission issues a report assessing Ukraine’s conti­nuous fulfilment of visa libera­li­sation requi­re­ments on the basis of its monitoring activity. Definitely an important document, this thorough report contains an analysis and highlights certain results and trends, including in the anti-corruption sphere. The develo­pment of anti-corruption indicators, which could be based on the visa libera­li­sation action plan (VLAP), and the quarterly monitoring of those indicators would be a way to obtain an even better and fuller picture on a conti­nuing basis. This kind of monitoring might also be a helpful tool for inter­na­tional partners and national civil society organiza­tions to use in their advocacy work.

Macro-financial Assis­tance (MFA) is a form of financial aid that the EU has extended to Ukraine since the outbreak of the crisis in early 2014. Ukraine and the EU jointly signed a Memorandum of Under­standing (MoU) outlining the policy programme attached to the MFA operation. This programme, based largely on the reform agenda pursued by the Ukrainian autho­rities, covers a broad range of areas, including public finance management, gover­nance and trans­pa­rency, the energy sector, social safety nets, business environment and the financial sector. Important anti-corruption condi­tio­na­lities are attached to the assis­tance in the MoU.

Considerable financial support has been provided newly created insti­tu­tions and civic society organi­sa­tions by other European programmes as well, such as the funding from EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI). Funded by the EU and Denmark and imple­mented by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the EUACI is the EU anti-corruption program in Ukraine. This initiative began a new four-year phase in May 2020 with a 22.9 million-euro budget.

On 25 January 2021, the G7 ambassadors to Ukraine made public a set of clearly articu­lated recom­men­da­tions as to action Ukraine should take next in its fight against corruption. In their “roadmap” for streng­thening anti-corruption insti­tu­tions and reforming the judiciary, the G7 ambassadors acknow­ledge the fact that recent decisions by the Consti­tu­tional Court of Ukraine have created a threat to the country and its democratic reforms. They go on to identify a number of priorities on which they believe Ukraine should concen­trate, and propose deadlines for their imple­men­tation. Speci­fi­cally, they identify the following as the most urgently needed steps: 1. re-estab­li­shing with a firm legal basis the anti-corruption provi­sions recently declared uncon­sti­tu­tional; 2. prevent the Consti­tu­tional Court from causing further harm while it is being reformed; and 3. ensure all nomina­tions to key judicial and law enforcement bodies are trans­parent, merit-based, and credible.

It is necessary to underline that the priorities identified by the G7 are fully supported by the civil society experts and activists. Unfort­u­nately, the majority of the recom­men­da­tions have not yet been imple­mented. Although the deadlines proposed by the G7 ambassadors lie in the past or will soon do so, the priority actions the roadmap proposes are still very relevant. Further support for and insis­tence on the urgent necessity of these priorities on the part of the EU would definitely be beneficial for Ukraine and its anti-corruption efforts.


Kateryna Ryzhenko
Head of Legal, Trans­pa­rency Inter­na­tional Ukraine

Gefördert durch:

 

Textende

Did you like thike this article? If yes, you can support the independent editorial work and journalism of LibMod via a simple donation tool.

We are recognized as a non-profit organization, accor­dingly donations are tax deduc­tible. For a donation receipt (necessary for an amount over 200 EUR), please send your address data to finanzen@libmod.de

Related topics

Newsletter bestellen

Stay tuned with our regular newsletter about all our relevant subjects.

Mit unseren Daten­schutz­be­stim­mungen
erklären Sie sich einverstanden.