On July 30, the Parliamentary Law Enforcement Committee will consider Draft Law No. 13533 and its alternatives regarding the restoration of the independence of the NABU and the SAPO. All four alternative proposals contain serious flaws. Below is an overview of the most significant ones.
Draft Law No. 13533-1: curtailing the powers of the head of the SAPO
This draft law, introduced by Oleksii Honcharenko, removes from Part Four of Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine the provision that authorizes the Deputy Prosecutor General — Head of the SAPO and their deputies to supplement, amend, or withdraw an appeal or cassation complaint. This power allowed the SAPO Head to define the strategy for appealing decisions of the HACC.
Such a reduction of the procedural powers of SAPO’s leadership contradicts the goal of restoring the institutional independence of the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office and may hinder the effective consideration of cases in higher courts.
Draft Law No. 13533-2: SSU jurisdiction and restrictions on investigative actions
The initiative from Yuliia Yatsyk and Oleksii Honcharenko grants the SSU the authority to investigate criminal offenses committed by the NABU Director, Bureau staff, and SAPO prosecutors. This violates the principle of investigative body specialization, as the SSU is a security agency focused on national security and terrorism cases.
In addition, the draft prohibits urgent searches in corruption cases, which would significantly complicate evidence collection and may paralyze the prosecution of suspects in corruption-related investigations.
Draft Law No. 13533-3: a challenge to professional recruitment under a new concept
Yuliia Tymoshenko proposes transferring the responsibility for selecting all SAPO prosecutors and leadership, as well as the NABU Director, to the National Assembly of Heroes of Ukraine, which would be established by the draft law. While Heroes of Ukraine hold high moral authority, this approach replaces professional criteria for selection commission members with symbolic credentials. The Assembly is envisioned as a permanent advisory body composed of Ukrainian citizens awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine for combat participation. However, the primary requirement for commission members must be the knowledge and experience needed to assess the professional qualifications of candidates for the SAPO prosecutor, SAPO Head, and the NABU Director roles. The proposed changes do not resolve this issue.
This mechanism sets a dangerous precedent of de-professionalizing appointments in the anti-corruption sphere and could result in key positions being filled by individuals lacking sufficient professional expertise.
Draft Law No. 13533-4: restricting investigative powers and undermining the coherence of the Criminal Code
Another concerning initiative is from Dmytro Razumkov, who seeks to introduce a new Article 111-3 to the Criminal Code of Ukraine on corruption offenses during martial law, with penalties ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment. While the intent to combat wartime corruption is commendable, these amendments violate the structural logic of the criminal law on public service offenses and contradict the principle of proportionality in punishment.
A critical issue is the significant restriction of law enforcement’s ability to intervene urgently. The draft permits warrantless searches in only an extremely narrow set of crimes, rendering prompt searches in corruption cases impossible. This could paralyze investigations into corruption schemes.
Conclusions
All four alternative proposals present various problems and create additional risks for the effectiveness of the NABU and the SAPO. They either limit the powers of anti-corruption institutions, introduce mechanisms for external interference, or impose disproportionate restrictions on investigative actions.
In contrast, the presidential Draft Law No. 13533, despite certain shortcomings, remains the most balanced option for restoring the institutional independence of anti-corruption bodies after the damaging amendments introduced by Law No. 4555-IX.
The Parliamentary Law Enforcement Committee should support its adoption as a basis and in full.
