The Obstacles to SAPO’s Work Flagged by Its Head, Oleksandr Klymenko

In an interview with the Ye Pytannia (“We Have Questions”) project, SAPO head Oleksandr Klymenko discussed the details of the latest high-profile investigations, the past and future subjects of the NABU tapes, large-scale schemes among the country’s top leadership, and the unprecedented pressure on the NABU and the SAPO. 

But beyond the specifics of these recent high-profile investigations, the SAPO head once again underscored the main problems his office is currently facing. Unfortunately, most of them have already become “chronic” — and some we at TI Ukraine have been talking about for years.

Here are the key ones.

SSU Pressure on Judges and Investigators

The SAPO head explained that the SSU is systematically pressuring judges through threats to their relatives, the revocation of reserved status, and mobilization — all to secure the rulings it wants in cases involving NABU detectives.

So, the problem of pressure on the anti-corruption law enforcement bodies, which came to a head on the eve of the cardboard protests, has not gone away; and although it is discussed less now, it still gets in the way.

An Attempt to Take Control of SAPO Through the Deputy Selection

Klymenko claims that one scenario for establishing control over SAPO is to win the competitive selection for deputy head — the stage that is currently accepting applications. That process is already mired in a few scandals. After that, according to Klymenko, interested parties would be in no hurry to hold the selection for the head. Part of the SAPO head’s powers would then rest with the Prosecutor General.

This is a real risk. We have already lived through a period when SAPO went almost two years without a full-fledged head, while the then-Prosecutor General, Iryna Venediktova, stalled certain cases and all but sank the Tatarov case entirely. And on the tapes in the Forrest Gump case, Iryna Mudra, a subject of that case, also mentioned this selection.

A Lack of Political Will

Asked whether the state has the political will to fight corruption, the SAPO head answered directly and without reservation: it does not. Given the pace of delivery on anti-corruption commitments under the Kachka-Kos plan and the European Commission’s recommendations, these statements are, unfortunately, borne out by reality.

Influence over the Anti-Corruption Bodies’ Selection Commissions

Klymenko confirmed that attempts to influence the commissions that select the leadership of the anti-corruption bodies are a real and systemic problem — as we saw, for example, from the tapes in the Stefanishyna case.

A Fund to Discredit NABU and SAPO 

According to the SAPO head, investigators recorded discussions about creating a special fund to discredit the anti-corruption bodies — and there was no shortage of people willing to finance it.

We have no confirmation that such a fund exists, but in recent months we have witnessed systematic communication attacks on the anti-corruption bodies and anti-corruption civil society organizations.

SAPO’s Institutional Dependence on the Prosecutor General

Despite SAPO’s procedural independence, investigating MPs still requires the Prosecutor General’s approval — and Klymenko admits this substantially limits what the anti-corruption prosecution can do.

It is worth mentioning here that expanding the powers of the SAPO head is yet another of Ukraine’s European integration commitments — one on which, nearly a year after the European Commission’s latest report, we have still seen no movement.

This material is funded by Norway. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Government.