Information has appeared online regarding a letter from the NABU and the SAP to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko containing proposals to amend the legislation.

I won’t venture to assess the authenticity of such an appeal, but I cannot ignore the content of these “initiatives.”

I have previously cautioned that our focus should not be on the names of agencies or their “sacred mission,” but on the fundamental principles of the rule of law and human rights and freedoms.

Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the purpose of criminal proceedings as the protection of the individual, society, and the state, as well as the safeguarding of the rights and freedoms of those involved in the proceedings. The protection of the individual is the primary and defining element here.

The fight against corruption is merely a tool, not an end in itself for which human rights can be compromised.

The claim that these changes are supported by the public and experts is an artificially created pretext. Through loyal media outlets, the necessary criticism is manufactured, which then serves as the basis for such letters. In reality, however, lawyers and scholars will never agree with what is being proposed.

On the statute of limitations (this is perhaps the most critical issue)

NABU proposes suspending the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution from the moment an indictment is filed with the court.

Any time limits in the codes are about discipline among law enforcement officials, the courts, and participants in the proceedings. Today, the time limits for bringing charges compel the system to operate in a timely manner, rather than keeping cases in drawers for years, waiting for them to “sit out.”

If this provision is repealed, it will become possible to investigate a case for 15 years, and then the High Anti-Corruption Court or another court will hear it for another 15 years. This constitutes a direct violation of the right to a prompt and impartial trial (Art. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which NABU has failed to address in this context. The Nasirov case clearly demonstrated that when deadlines “loom,” the court finds a way to proceed with the case in a timely and efficient manner. The issue is not the law, but the fulfillment of duties.

On the Time Limits for Pretrial Investigation

It is proposed to completely eliminate judicial oversight in this matter. Even if this mechanism (judicial oversight) is criticized, it obligates the prosecutor to publicly explain why they failed to complete the investigation on time and what they need to conclude the investigation. If the decision to extend the investigation becomes a behind-the-scenes decision by the prosecutor, we will lose the ability to verify the legitimacy of restrictions on human rights—especially when it comes to pretrial detention—and the prosecutor will bear no real responsibility for a detective’s negligence.

On the Inclusion of Information Regarding Members of Parliament

Currently, this is the prerogative of the Prosecutor General, but NABU wants to grant this right to the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Entries into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations can already be made upon the commission of a crime, without initially identifying a specific individual, and if sufficient evidence is established, a notice of suspicion is issued.

The large number of allegations against members of parliament has already led to a political crisis in the country. Members of parliament are sabotaging the work of the legislature and refusing to vote, particularly on European integration initiatives.

Do all these allegations have a chance of resulting in a conviction? I have serious doubts. This appears to be a tool for exerting pressure on the parliamentary corps. As we can see, the current version of Article 482-2 does not preclude the investigation of crimes committed by members of parliament. And why should this authority be limited solely to the Deputy Prosecutor General—the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)? Why not any other law enforcement agency in the name of “justice,” or at least another deputy?

On Expert Institutions

NABU complains about the heavy workload and bias of existing institutions, but offers no systematic solution for the people. They want to create their own institution. Where is the independence here if it will work exclusively on their cases? Even now, we hear from experts, when refusing to conduct an examination, that this is “not gentlemanly”—as if to say, they won’t enter into a confrontation with law enforcement.

On Access to Court Decisions

They justify this by arguing that making decisions public makes it possible to “predict the course of an investigation.” But an open process is precisely what guarantees the adversarial nature of the proceedings. Access to court rulings does not hinder the solving of crimes or the conduct of investigative operations; it simply makes NABU’s work more transparent and less “comfortable” for them.

We all need to realize that by putting anti-corruption agencies on a pedestal, we risk ending up with a police state. The proposed changes apply to the entire Code of Criminal Procedure, not just anti-corruption agencies, corruption offenses, or crimes related to corruption. This means that tomorrow, the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) will be able to hold military personnel in custody for years without having to justify the duration of the pre-trial investigation, while the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) or the police will be able to “harass” businesspeople for decades, since time limits will no longer apply.