How Public Demand Works, Written on Cardboard

Ukrainians are marking the anniversary of the protests against curtailing the independence of the NABU and the SAPO with cardboard signs once again. And, just as last year, it came as a response to “unexplainable” decisions by the authorities.

The events of July 2025 tore up the tacit, unwritten social contract under which citizens had held back from protesting during the war. But once parliament placed the independence of the NABU and the SAPO — and the resilience of the entire anti-corruption system — under direct threat, public patience ran out. And it was the public’s reaction that proved decisive in reversing that decision.

In 2026, we are feeling a certain déjà vu. Although the protests are now attached to specific names, what people are really speaking out against is mounting pressure and the rollback of reforms — exactly as they were a year ago. So these two protests genuinely are alike, and not only because of the cardboard 

Why this keeps happening in July is a mystery of its own. It would be good if the authorities stopped going in circles and started planning ahead instead of assembling reactive damage control. And everything would be different if decisions like these were preceded by honest communication and explanation — otherwise the protests may not stay confined to July.

But the people’s cardboard worked — last year and now alike.

As we can see, for all the skeptics’ doubts, the authorities are in fact compelled to listen to what people in the squares are asking for — whether it concerns the anti-corruption institutions or the replacement of the Commander-in-Chief. That matters for a state that declares its principles to be democratic. But what happens after a response like that?

A year on from the protests against stripping the NABU and the SAPO of their independence, we can now assess whether the state used that time to strengthen these institutions, whether it genuinely moved along the European integration track and removed the systemic obstacles to their work. And here it is worth turning to the foundational document on these questions — the Rule of Law Road Map, which sets out concrete steps to strengthen the anti-corruption institutions. Implementing it is one of our European integration requirements.

There has certainly been some progress over the years, but it has mostly concerned the internal work of the institutions themselves (progress in numerous investigations and new verdicts) rather than external players such as parliament. The SAPO and the HACC have adopted institutional development strategies, the NABU is implementing the recommendations of independent international auditors, and their performance overall has improved. The competition for HACC judgeships is nearing completion, and the question of proper premises for the court has finally moved off the ground.

…But the key commitments still have not been met. 

The SAPO head has still not been given the power to send extradition requests independently or to form joint investigation teams in top-level corruption cases. The NABU still has not been provided with access to impartial, timely, high-quality forensic examinations. Examples of what these delays cost keep piling up. Nor have the legislative changes needed to remove procedural delays in the HACC’s work been adopted.

The July events — last year’s and this year’s — should serve not only as a reminder of how real the risk of rollback is, but also as a point of accountability. We now know that had people not come out onto Ivan Franko Square in Kyiv and onto the squares of other Ukrainian cities last year, everything in anti-corruption investigations would have stayed as it was. There would have been no Chernyshov cases; he might even have kept his place in government. There would have been no Mindichgate and no Dynasty case. Andrii Yermak would still be sitting in the Office of the President. And dozens upon dozens of other investigations would have been shut down.

The consequences of what is happening now are still ahead of us. But the protests already show clearly what society is asking for: not the rollback of reforms, but their continuation. This applies to the NABU, the SAPO, and the HACC too: their capacity must keep being strengthened, and no encroachment on their institutional independence can be tolerated. All the more so because, on Ukraine’s path to EU membership, the reform commitments we have taken on are not a formality — they are effectively a condition of our survival as a country. 

Ukrainian society is demanding higher-quality governance, protection of its rights, and greater prosperity. So the authorities must not only deliver change, but also explain the logic behind their actions to citizens. Society has grown up, and it is time to finally recognize that.