What Legislative Changes Are Needed to Truly Strengthen NABU?

On 31 July, the Parliament urgently adopted, and the President signed, Law No. 4560-ІХ, which restores the independence of the NABU and the SAPO after it was significantly restricted just a week earlier. This regulation represents a compromise: it does not reinstate all provisions in place before July 22, 2025 and introduces additional oversight of the NABU and other agencies by the Security Service of Ukraine, which could negatively affect the Bureau’s operations.

It is important to remember that this law does not mark progress in building anti-corruption institutions — it merely corrects egregious mistakes made by the authorities in violation of democratic procedures. To foster genuine institutional development, further efforts are required, particularly those aimed at implementing recommendations from the first-ever external audit of the NABU.

This article outlines the most urgent recommendations that, if implemented by Parliament, could significantly strengthen the NABU. 

How was the NABU audited?

This was the first-ever external independent assessment of the NABU, a mechanism mandated by the law governing the Bureau to be conducted annually to evaluate its performance. The audit was carried out by a special commission of three international experts appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers on the recommendation of international organizations providing technical assistance to Ukraine in the anti-corruption sector.

The auditors reviewed NABU’s work from March 2023 (when Semen Kryvonos was appointed Director) to November 2024 (when the evaluation criteria were finalized). Their analysis focused on five key areas: 

• Detection and investigation of high-level corruption 
• Integrity and transparency of the Bureau’s operations 
• Resource management and strategic planning 
• Cooperation with other state agencies
• International cooperation. 

The Commission had access to closed criminal case files, conducted confidential interviews with NABU employees, SAPO prosecutors, and other officials, and was authorized to request documents from any organization.

The resulting audit report, published on May 6, 2025, concluded that NABU’s performance was moderately effective. It also included recommendations addressed to the Bureau’s leadership, Parliament, and other state bodies. Ideally, MPs wishing to optimize the anti-corruption system should have used this report as their reference point, instead of pushing through amendments that nearly dismantled the independence of the NABU and the SAPO.

This approach would also signal to Ukraine’s international partners that the country is making genuine progress in the fight against corruption.

What recommendations were addressed to Parliament and other state bodies?

The Commission issued 26 recommendations to the NABU concerning strategic planning, data collection and use, progress tracking, and other aspects. Importantly, the Commission also noted that NABU’s effectiveness was hampered by external factors beyond its control. Therefore, it issued several additional recommendations for Parliament and other state bodies, some of which will require legislative amendments and joint efforts between the NABU and the Verkhovna Rada.

Autonomous wiretapping and state secrets

Some of the most critical recommendations pertain to granting the NABU the capability to conduct autonomous wiretapping and gain direct access to classified information. The Commission highlighted that NABU’s reliance on the SSU for wiretapping operations and security clearances undermines its institutional independence and increases the risk of exposing undercover agents.

The auditors insisted that Parliament and other state bodies, where necessary, must ensure both the legal and technical conditions to allow the NABU full control over its wiretapping operations.

This issue is particularly urgent, as requiring SSU-issued security clearances for operational and investigative activities creates a significant risk of disclosing sensitive information. Ironically, instead of implementing this recommendation, Parliament exacerbated the problem with its July 22 decision. The issue of autonomous wiretapping has remained unresolved since the Bureau’s inception.

Independent forensic examination

The Commission also raised concerns about the lack of independent forensic examination in high-level corruption cases. To resolve this, the Verkhovna Rada should consider legal guarantees for forensic experts and additional safeguards to prevent interference in expert findings.

In top corruption cases, forensic opinions, especially economic ones, often play a decisive role in establishing criminal liability. The HACC has repeatedly flagged questionable forensic conclusions in case proceedings. For example, in the Electrovazhmash case, the HACC Appeals Chamber ordered an independent examination due to contradictory expert findings. And in the Gas Case against Oleksandr Onyshchenko, the HACC Appeals Chamber overturned the first-instance verdict, partly because the court had overstepped its mandate by interpreting forensic conclusions as an expert would. Timely and unbiased forensic examination is essential for the quality of investigations into high-level corruption and, ultimately, the delivery of fair justice.

Asset seizures: Avoiding bi-monthly reviews

The Commission warned MPs against amending Ukrainian law to require that all asset seizure orders be reviewed every two months, citing the impracticality of such a measure. This refers to Draft Law No. 12439, under active discussion in Parliament since March 2025. In a separate article, we have already explained that such changes could undermine NABU’s capacity to seize assets both in Ukraine and abroad.

Addressing this issue is especially important in the context of international cooperation, as the proposed changes could complicate enforcement of asset seizure orders in foreign jurisdictions. It also contradicts Ukraine’s EU integration commitments, where asset recovery is a key evaluation criterion. 

Repealing the “Lozovyi Amendments”

The Commission endorsed the expert community’s long-standing call to repeal the so-called “Lozovyi amendments.” These legislative changes have already hampered NABU’s investigations, especially after the October 2022 decision by the Supreme Court, which unexpectedly held that investigative judges, rather than prosecutors, must extend investigation timeframes in certain case categories.

Repealing these amendments would help the NABU and other law enforcement agencies avoid unjustified case closures and eliminate other obstacles in prosecuting high-level corruption.

In May of this year, a broad public discussion was held on pre-trial investigation deadlines. We hope the authorities will soon propose a reasonable legal solution. Repealing the “Lozovyi amendments” is also part of Ukraine’s international commitments.

Addressing jurisdictional violations

One systemic problem identified by the audit was the violation of NABU’s investigative jurisdiction. The Commission documented cases where other investigative agencies failed to transfer cases at NABU’s request and instead forwarded them to the Prosecutor General’s Office, causing delays in investigations. 

To solve this issue, legislation must:

• Clearly define the rules and timeframes for transferring criminal proceedings between agencies, especially at NABU’s request
• Introduce administrative or disciplinary liability for PGO, SBI, and other agency officials who violate jurisdictional rules or fail to comply with transfer requests from the NABU, the SAPO, or prosecutors.

It’s worth recalling that the now-canceled Law No. 4555-ІХ, adopted on 22 July, worsened the situation by granting the PGO broad authority to seize cases from the NABU and reassign them to other agencies. This misguided initiative made matters worse instead of solving them.

Even though that danger has since been addressed, the law still lacks clear procedures for case transfers and does not establish direct liability for jurisdictional violations. These legal gaps jeopardize the admissibility of evidence. Courts could then acquit defendants despite overwhelming proof of guilt, nullifying years of investigative and prosecutorial work. 

As a cautionary example, in 2023, the Chief Psychiatrist of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was acquitted of bribery charges due in part to a jurisdictional violation. In January 2025, he was detained again by the SSU, this time for allegedly acquiring over $1 million in illicit assets and failing to declare them.

***

The events of July 22 showed that, rather than empowering the NABU, the authorities can severely undermine the independence of anti-corruption bodies through ill-conceived legislation.

True institutional strengthening will not come from ad hoc legal experiments but from the consistent implementation of well-founded recommendations. Fortunately, Parliament already has a clear roadmap: the conclusions of NABU’s first independent audit. Acting on this report should be the top priority for lawmakers who genuinely wish to improve Ukraine’s anti-corruption system. We hope that MPs will continue to follow this logical and quite legal path.

Moreover, implementing these recommendations would not only demonstrate progress to international partners but also lay the groundwork for effective prosecution of high-level corruption. Without these reforms, Ukraine risks losing the trust of the international community and undermining its own anti-corruption infrastructure during a critical period of national recovery.