Last week Ukraine’s fast-tracked bill that would have put independent anti-corruption agencies under the purview of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, an appointee by President Zelenskyy, sparked both domestic and international outrage. Ukraine has two anti-corruption agencies, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Both of these agencies are tasked with investigating high-level corruption and were established in 2014 and 2015 respectively, in part due to Brussels’ demand to commence the fight against corruption as a precondition to signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. The establishment of SAPO was also closely linked to the visa liberalization between Ukraine and the EU.
Last week’s bill would have allowed the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to reassign cases from NABU to other agencies, potentially removing politically sensitive investigations from NABU’s jurisdiction. It would have also granted the Prosecutor General the authority to directly instruct anti-corruption prosecutors within SAPO, who had previously been subordinate only to their agency’s leadership. The fast-tracked bill, which threatened the independence of both NABU and SAPO, was signed into law by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the same day it was passed by the Ukrainian parliament.
Initially Zelenskyy defended the bill as necessary to cleanse the anti-corruption bodies of Russian influence. Shortly before the introduction of the short-lived bill Kyiv arrested two NABU officials on suspicions of ties to Russia and searched over a dozen offices belonging to the anti-corruption bodies. Despite Zelenskyy’s claim of wanting to free the anti-corruption bodies of Russian interference, it is alleged, however, that the President had ulterior motives to curb the independence of these agencies. In the last couple of weeks NABU conducted searches at the residence of former defence minister (until 2023) Oleksii Reznikov and charged Deputy Prime Minister, a close ally and friend of Zelenskyy, Oleksiy Chernyshov with corruption. These anti-corruption efforts might also explain why the President sought to take control of these institutions. As our site has argued earlier, the struggle for the independence of these bodies reveals doubts about whether Kyiv is a democracy at all—while the respect of democracy and the rule of law remains conditions for EU accession.
For the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, citizens took to the streets to protest President Zelenskyy’s decision to amend the anti-corruption law. Crowds gathered in Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro, as well as in the frontline city of Kharkiv, despite a nationwide ban on mass gatherings under martial law. Staunch supporters of Ukraine, such as German MEP Daniel Freund and EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos, also voiced their criticism of the Verkhovna Rada’s decision to pass the law. ‘The EU provides significant financial assistance to Ukraine, which depends on progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance,’ warned a spokesperson for the European Commission. Other EU officials also cautioned Kyiv that the new anti-corruption law could jeopardize Ukraine’s EU accession efforts. In response to the outcry, President Zelenskyy submitted a new bill to the Rada repealing the earlier one.
As demonstrated by President Zelenskyy’s decision to consult not with Ukrainian civil society but with European leaders from Germany and the UK before drafting the new bill, it was EU criticism—not domestic outcry—that prompted him to backtrack on the controversial measure. Kyiv is heavily dependent on EU funds to sustain its war effort, pay pensions, and ensure the functioning of the state. As a result, Ukraine is not in a position to pass legislation that is strongly opposed in Brussels. The fact that the Ukrainian leadership had no choice but to yield to the EU’s demands regarding the anti-corruption law underscores how Kyiv’s ability to act and legislate independently is being undermined by its financial dependence on the European Union.
‘Given Ukraine’s financial dependence on the EU, it is likely that, as a Member State, it would align its votes with the Commission’s preferences’
Kyiv’s inability to pursue its own policies due to its financial subjugation to Brussels is likely to deepen in the near future under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Nearly 20 per cent of the €2 trillion MFF—the EU’s next seven-year budget—is expected to go to Ukraine. With €200 billion allocated to a non-EU country, Ukraine would potentially benefit more from the EU’s multiannual budget than many Member States. This not only harms the financial interests of those Member States but also further undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty by tying its national budget even more closely to Brussels.
The EU accession of a country financially subjugated to Brussels would have far-reaching implications for the functioning of the Union. If Ukraine were to join the EU as a Member State, it would gain veto power in the Council, a Commissioner in the European Commission, and dozens of MEPs in the European Parliament—amounting to significant voting influence within EU institutions. Given Ukraine’s financial dependence on the EU, it is likely that, as a Member State, it would align its votes with the Commission’s preferences. In effect, this would grant the European Commission indirect voting power in bodies meant to represent the independent interests of Member States. Such a development would mark a shift toward a more centraliszed European Union, increasingly dominated by the Commission—potentially at the expense of Member States’ sovereignty and their ability to pursue national interests within the EU framework.
Related articles:
The post EU Pressure Forces Reversal on Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Law, Raising Sovereignty Concerns appeared first on Hungarian Conservative.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Lili Zemplényi
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.hungarianconservative.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.