Political persecution under the guise of anti-corruption fight: human rights activists call NABU's statements against ex-Minister Solskyi a violation of the presumption of innocence
Kyiv • UNN
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine frequently announces high-profile exposés of high-ranking officials, but such cases often lack legal basis and end in acquittals, damaging reputations and careers despite the lack of convictions.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has been making claims about "high-profile exposures" of top officials. However, such cases do not always have a legal basis, and sometimes even end in acquittals. This was the case with former Minister Volodymyr Omelyan, who was loudly accused of a crime by the NABU and the SAPO, and then was fully acquitted by the court. This is likely to be the case with another minister, Mykola Solsky. In April, he was accused of taking possession of land that he did not own, and the NABU still does not say what he took possession of.
Nevertheless, the NABU's "loud statements" have already achieved their goal: Solsky resigned as Minister of Agricultural Policy, and the Poles withdrew from the negotiations on unblocking the borders under this pretext.
We should not forget about the case of Georgiy Logvinsky, when the actions of the NABU were recognized as illegal by the ECHR Plenum.
How many more acquittals are needed for the NABU to stop PR and what responsibility detectives should have for violating the presumption of innocence, UNN asked Yevhen Zakharov, director of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, .
- How do you feel about the NABU's actions when they loudly announce the exposure of top officials in schemes, which results in people's reputation and careers suffering, but then these cases often fall apart in court?
- Any high-profile criminal proceeding conducted by the NABU, in flagrant violation of the presumption of innocence, is necessarily accompanied by an exposing propaganda campaign, throwing data from covert investigative and search operations into the public space. This is explained by the fact that there is no other way to fight domestic corruption, because this octopus is fiercely resisting. It is believed that society is mostly inclined to believe all reports of illicit enrichment and other corrupt practices.
In Ukraine today, any reputation can be smashed to pieces if you set out to do so. This is a very bad trend. It increases the level of general distrust in society. It makes any positive activity aimed at change impossible.
In my opinion, it would be good if a few dozen people defended their honor and dignity in the courts, demanding a refutation of the accusations made against them. We need such processes. Society needs to understand that human honor, dignity and reputation are no less important for a democratic society than access to information and disclosure of abuses.
The success of the fight against corruption is measured not by the number of people imprisoned, but by the amount of money taken out of the shadow economy and the number of corruption schemes disrupted as a result of law enforcement activities. Our corruption is a substitute for the market, which we do not actually have. That is why the government and business are connected. Being close to the government means all kinds of preferences in business. This is where corruption grows like a wildfire. And it is indeed all-encompassing. But under such conditions, criminal anti-corruption cases turn into selective prosecution of business competitors and political opponents and destabilize the situation. Lawlessness cannot be defeated by lawlessness!
- One of the most recent "high-profile" cases of the NABU is that of former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi. Do you see any signs of political persecution in this criminal proceeding?
- In my opinion, yes, they do. I believe that the real reason for the prosecution of Solsky is the desire to stop his efforts to create a land market in Ukraine, not to punish him for his criminal actions. This substitution is evidence of the political motives of the criminal prosecution.
- How can you comment on the fact that NABU based the case on events from seven years ago, when he was not yet a minister?
- In my opinion, when old events are brought to light for criminal prosecution, it usually means a desire to falsify a criminal case. I don't think this story is an exception.
- Can and does NABU have the right to declare verbatim "the former head of the Agricultural Committee - the current minister is CLEARED of seizing state land" before the court decision?
- I believe that such actions of the NABU violate the presumption of innocence, which prohibits premature conviction before a court decision.
- Often, defendants in criminal proceedings investigated by NABU detectives declare their intention to defend their rights in the ECHR. What is the situation with applications to the ECHR due to the actions of the Anti-Corruption Bureau
Since 2019, several dozen applications have been filed with the ECHR against Ukraine, alleging violations of the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, the right to privacy, and the substitution of a legitimate purpose for criminal prosecution. Most of these cases have been communicated and are pending.
- How did the case of former MP Georgiy Logvinsky, whom NABU suspects of organizing the seizure of the company "Golden Mandarin Oil" end?
- It did not end. After the shameful for Ukraine Decision of the ECHR Plenum, which noted the illegal actions of NABU in this case, it was suspended. But "the authorities are not wrong!". As soon as Logvinsky's immunity (which was granted to him because his wife Hanna Yudkivska was a judge of the ECHR - ed.) expired, the case was resumed, although the charges in it, in my opinion, are absurd.
Recall
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine is "known" for its ability to loudly announce the exposure of another scheme and to serve a top official with a notice of suspicion. However, these cases often fall apart in courts or even fail to reach them.
A good example is the criminal proceedings against former Infrastructure Minister Volodymyr Omelyan. Both cases collapsed in court.
As Volodymyr Omelyan himself noted in an interview with UNN, the NABU criminal proceedings caused him significant reputational and financial damage. After all, for many years he was mentioned in NABU reports as a minister against whom criminal proceedings were opened, which led to problems with banking institutions, among other things. However, the NABU did not officially apologize to the former minister for the illegal criminal prosecution and damage to his business reputation. This was done only by individual detectives in private conversations.
Another example is the criminal proceedings against former MP Dmytro Kriuchkov, which anti-corruption activists have been investigating for almost 10 years. All these years, he has been living with significant restrictions that have already negatively affected his lifestyle and private business.
One of the recent "high-profile" cases of the NABU is the case against the former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi. In April, he was served with a suspicion of seizing land in Sumy region. However, as it turned out later, neither he, nor his family or affiliates have such land. However, ATO participants, who were granted the right to privatize them, do. The NABU refused to specify what exactly Solsky had seized . Moreover, the detectives tried to "leak" the examination, which they themselves had ordered and which, obviously, was supposed to testify to Solsky's innocence.
However, the public accusations had their effect - the Poles used a formal reason and withdrew from negotiations with Ukraine to unblock the borders, and Solsky resigned from his post as minister. Some experts believe that this move by Poland was premeditated, and it is no coincidence that the Solsky case coincided with the Poles' demarche . In addition, the "loud" statement about the exposure of the land misappropriation scheme took place against the backdrop of a scandal in the NABU itself about the alleged leakage of information from the bureau.
