The Status of Ukraine’s Fight Against Corruption (Part 1)

In late July of this year, the Ukrainian government’s commitment to rooting out corruption appeared in serious doubt. On July 21, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) searched the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), leading to the arrest of individuals who were alleged to be linked to Russia. Transparency International-Ukraine was among the civil society organizations that condemned the raid, asserting that the search was part of a government effort to “to undermine the independence of Ukraine’s post-Revolution of Dignity anti-corruption institutions.” The local press later disputed the allegations that touched off the raid.

On July 22, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill that had been amended to include provisions restricting the independence of NABU and of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), moving them under the Prosecutor General. Following the raid, Zelensky claimed these bodies needed to be shielded from “Russian influence.” Protests broke out, Ukraine’s Western partners raised concerns, and the EU froze $1.7 billion in aid. On July 24, Zelensky reversed his decision, submitting a new bill to Parliament, which he claimed would safeguard the independence of NABU and SAPO while also protecting them from Russian meddling. The Verkhovna Rada approved that bill on July 31.

Against that backdrop, a parallel crisis was brewing. Under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility program review, Ukraine was due to appoint a new head of another anticorruption body, the Bureau of Economic Security (ESBU or BEB). That deadline was first moved from the end of February to July, due to procedural delays. In June, the international commission charged with vetting candidates and making a nomination to the government put forward Oleksandr Tsyvinsky, a former NABU investigator. It was known that Tsyvinsky had family ties to Russia, but that was not considered an issue at the time. However, citing additional materials provided by the security services, the Cabinet of Ministers rejected his candidacy in early July and asked the commission for a new candidate. The commission held the line and renominated Tsyvinsky with the support of Ukrainian civil society groups, but his candidacy was rejected a second time. It was not until early August that Tsyvinsky was finally approved to head the BEB.

To assess whether Ukraine’s anticorruption efforts are truly back on track, I spoke recently with Matthew Murray. This piece is the first of a two-part series covering our conversation. Murray is a fixture in the global anticorruption movement, and is very well-placed in Ukraine, having been appointed in 2023 by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers to the selection commission for the new chair of the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP). Murray is an attorney, adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International & Public Affairs and holds board positions in the private sector. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Europe, the Middle East and Africa and as a Senior Advisor on Rule of Law and Governance at USAID during the Obama Administration.

In that same critical period this summer, Murray attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, where he said concerns about NABU, SAPO and the BEB were at the forefront of Ukrainian civil society meetings. As this important event for Ukraine’s future kicked off, Murray said there were signs that the government was seeking to “undermine or dilute the independence of these young and still fragile institutions.” In response, Ukrainian NGOs with whom he was meeting immediately began developing legal strategies to push back on the government and to raise the issue with representatives of the G7 and international donors at the conference.

Murray described the civil society response as “dynamic, creative, and assertive,” showing what he called “zero tolerance” for any backtracking on anti-corruption commitments. Murray said that Ukrainian government leaders “miscalculated about how their actions against NABU and SAPO would be perceived” and that they “should be grateful to civil society for holding them accountable and keeping them on track.” At root, he feels it is unclear what motivated the Ukrainian leaders’ decisions, but rather than speculating, Murray said he “prefers to highlight how quickly they decided to reverse themselves.” Further, Murray underlined (as he has written) that fighting corruption strengthens Ukraine’s national security. He noted that Putin cited Ukraine’s anticorruption push in his attempt to justify the full-scale invasion in 2022. Murray said that Putin “is threatened by the strength of Ukrainian civil society” and by any challenges to his “ability to use strategic corruption and malign actors to upset the country’s progress.”

The problems, however, that garnered public attention in the summer have not completely subsided. In late October, the SBU once again carried out searches of the homes of relatives of a NABU detective. In its analysis of that event, the Kyiv Independent wrote, “only Russia” stands to benefit from this open hostility between the President’s circle and Ukraine’s independent anticorruption agencies.

Marc Schleifer

Governance, Democracy and Economic Development Expert