The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) has opened a criminal investigation into possible official negligence by officials in Goncharuk’s government. Simply put, for “inaction” in preventing the coronavirus epidemic.

According to the agency’s press service, on January 31, 2020, and February 8, 2020, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine sent letters to the Prime Minister of Ukraine regarding the urgent need to restrict the export and re-export of products which could be used, directly or indirectly, in the implementation of anti-epidemic, preventive, and therapeutic measures aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 cases within Ukraine. “However, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine at that time ‘effectively ignored’ these measures, which were never implemented. On March 23, 2020, information regarding a possible criminal offense was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations on the grounds of a crime under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,” the statement reads.

Former Prime Minister Oleksiy Honcharuk was quick to respond: “I was told that the system would start to ‘catch up,’ but I didn’t think it would happen so fast. The ‘impressive efficiency’ of law enforcement agencies. If only they fought corruption and caught criminals with that same zeal, instead of blaming COVID-19 on Goncharuk.” Goncharuk wrote this on his Facebook page. He added that long before receiving the letter from the National Security and Defense Council, experts from the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, led by Zoryana Skaletska, had been in active communication with WHO experts and monitoring the situation. “We established a dedicated task force, declared a state of heightened readiness, and developed action plans. Furthermore, on January 31, the day we received the letter, I immediately convened a meeting and issued urgent instructions to the Ministry of Health, as well as to Anna Novosad, Oksana Markarova, Tymofiy Milovanov, Maksym Nefyodov, and Vadym Prystaiko. On February 3, at a Cabinet meeting, we approved the National Plan of Anti-Epidemiological Measures aimed at preventing the spread of 2019-nCoV. Among other things, the plan included an instruction to explore the possibility of imposing a temporary export ban in the event that a shortage of such goods in Ukraine is detected…”—writes the former prime minister.

Clearly, this case is not purely legal in nature. What are the prospects for the case filed against Goncharuk’s Cabinet?

Boris Babin, legal advisor at Barristers Law Firm, international lawyer, and former Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea:

“The prospects for these proceedings, in my opinion, are rather modest.”

– First, according to the Law “On the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine,” the requirements of the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council are binding on executive authorities only if they concern the implementation of presidential directives or decisions of the National Security and Defense Council. The NSDC’s decision regarding the coronavirus was approved after Mr. Danilov had written these letters. I am also almost certain that, prior to his correspondence with the Prime Minister, the NSDC Secretary had sent similar proposals to the President in his capacity as head of the NSDC and, possibly, to the Head of the Presidential Office as well. Most likely, he did not receive any directives in response; otherwise, the government would have acted immediately and closed the borders. This raises the question: why didn’t the Presidential Administration respond to these ideas in a timely manner? Second, as is evident from Goncharuk’s public explanations, he responded to these letters without delay, in accordance with the rules of record-keeping and the Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations—instructions were issued, and specific individuals were assigned responsibility. Therefore, any questions—even if they are legitimate—should be directed at them. Third, in a situation where law enforcement officials are playing at being big-time politicians and making decisions not in accordance with the law but to please television viewers (or one specific viewer), such cases have very poor prospects in court—even in a Ukrainian court. And if anyone wants to play at being a “Specialized Anti-Coronavirus Prosecutor,” I’m not sure the High Anti-Corruption Court will share their passion for role-playing as doctor and patient.

By the way, last year I proposed amending the legislation on the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) to introduce at least administrative liability for failure to comply with lawful orders from the NSDC Secretary and officials of the NSDC Secretariat, but no one agreed to this because everyone was afraid of the new powers and the responsibility that came with them.