Key Points from the NABU Anti-Corruption Committee Field Meeting

The saga of NABU leaks continues, and today, the long-awaited meeting of the Anti-Corruption Committee took place.

Let us remind you that on June 20, the head of the Anti-Corruption Committee, Anastasia Radina, announced this meeting after NABU Director Semen Kryvonos did not attend the Verkhovna Rada at the invitation of the people’s deputies.

This time, Kryvonos did not avoid the MPs and provided the following answers to their questions. Let’s discuss the key points from the meeting.

1.  In general, there are three official investigations in this case: pressure on the whistleblower, illegal instructions to the detective, and the initiative of the Anti-Corruption Action Center.

2. The official investigation into the disclosure of confidential pre-trial investigation information at NABU was not initiated, among other reasons, because a year had passed since the date of the alleged disciplinary offense (April 27, 2023, the last probable event of disclosure). Instead, a pre-trial investigation is being carried out, which has more tools for uncovering the objective truth. It examines more disclosure facts than those reported by journalists. It’s possible that this investigation may be re-assigned to another authority.

3. The term of the official investigation will end in the last decade of July this year. Following this, the NABU disciplinary commission will review the conclusion and submit a recommendation to the Bureau’s Director. Semen Kryvonos did not specify a timeline for making decisions, but he mentioned that it would take several weeks after the investigation to reach a conclusion.

4. The NABU Director, for his part, promises to report on the main milestones of the official investigation: its completion and consideration by the disciplinary commission.

5. Gizo Uglava did not undergo a polygraph test at NABU despite receiving an invitation. According to Kryvonos, he instead took the test with an external expert and submitted the results to the Internal Control Department (ICD).

6. In general, Kryvonos provided the following chronology of events regarding the leaks:

• On April 24, 2024, the NABU detective informed Kryvonos about the alleged disclosure of pretrial investigation data.
• On April 30, the information was sent to the ICD, where they began information and analytical work with these data. As a result, a meeting was arranged with the head of the SAPO to determine who will investigate this case.
• On May 10, detectives from the ICD entered relevant information into the Unified State Register of Pretrial Investigations.

7. According to Kryvonos, as part of efforts to address mistakes, a previous study analyzed the risks associated with leaking information about pre-trial investigations. This included examining access to court decisions, expert opinions, and wiretapping conducted by the SSU. This was done in response to the NABU technical assessment report. The Director of NABU offered to share this research with the People’s Deputies. We at TI Ukraine will certainly contact him. However, this study did not specifically address the facts of leaks within NABU.

8. The head of the SAPO, also present at the meeting, highlighted the issue of excessive concentration of powers in one person within NABU. Here, he was referring to Gizo Uglava, the first deputy director of NABU, who the media consider one of the participants in the NABU leak. Kryvonos disagreed with this assertion, stating that such conclusions can only be drawn after thorough research. The NABU Director is convinced that conducting an effective investigation into the Bureau’s leadership is challenging because the ICD, which was under Uglava’s control, does not have the authority to investigate NABU’s leadership. We will also share our initial impressions of these answers.