The Verkhovna Rada has adopted Ukraine's anti-corruption strategy until 2025. This decision was voted for by 310 MPs.

1. What is the significance of this document?

2. What made it possible for the Verkhovna Rada to adopt the strategy after almost 3 years of pause?

3. What was missing from it when it was adopted?

In times of war, corruption is not only a matter of the economy or international reputation, but also quite often the price of our citizens' lives.

What is an anti-corruption strategy and why is it needed?

An anti-corruption strategy is a plan of anti-corruption measures at the country level. The document has been developed for a long time and in detail. The result is a real roadmap: specific problems and expected results to reduce corruption in various areas, from the judiciary to defence.

Why has the anti-corruption strategy been gathering dust in parliament for so long?

According to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, the anti-corruption strategy is a document that helps ensure teamwork of all authorities to overcome corruption. The NAPC is supposed to implement it.

The ‘problem’ was that the strategy described the problems and steps needed to reduce corruption in too much detail. As a result, representatives of various government agencies became nervous, feeling that they were getting not just another declarative piece of paper, but a risk of real interference in their activities.

A striking example was the judiciary, which launched an information campaign against the adoption of the document. The High Council of Justice pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Strategy did not meet the requirements of lawmaking techniques, was declarative in nature, and contained contradictory statements and unconfirmed provisions. This message was picked up and spread by local courts. And all this happened after the strategy included the idea of conducting an independent integrity check of candidates to the judiciary.

The Association for the Development of Judicial Self-Government insisted that judicial integrity could not be the subject of the Anti-Corruption Strategy at all. The judges were convinced that the document ‘unreasonably discredits every judge and court employee’ and ‘aims to destroy the judicial system’, etc. Of course, the judges were not alone.

Since the adoption of the Anti-Corruption Strategy was demanded by state anti-corruption agencies, the public, and international partners, the law was finally adopted in the first reading in November 2020. However, when processing more than 500 proposals from MPs and preparing the document for adoption, priorities changed and the final decision was shelved.

Formally, it was due to the lack of a unified position among political forces - some defended judges from the anti-corruption strategy, some defended law enforcement officers, and some defended other people. Even the repeated appeals of the President of Ukraine did not work.

Why was the anti-corruption strategy adopted?

During the war, all resources were concentrated on fighting the external enemy. Internal confrontations were postponed until victory. Even anti-corruption agencies such as the NAPC focused more on finding Russian assets than on corruption in officials' declarations.

But the main impetus for putting anti-corruption back on the agenda came from outside:

1. The EU's recommendation for candidate status put the issue of anti-corruption reform in Ukraine at the top of the agenda.
2. Ukraine's recovery from the war and billions of dollars in cash injections are inextricably linked to corruption. Therefore, the international practice of preventing the theft of these funds puts the adoption of an anti-corruption strategy at the forefront.

What does the adopted anti-corruption strategy envisage?

The document contains 4 sections: the first describes the concept of anti-corruption policy for the next 5 years, and the other three are devoted to describing the problems and expected results in various areas. In particular, the strategy aims to eradicate corruption in the following areas:

• customs and taxation
• courts and law enforcement agencies;
• state regulation of the economy;
• construction and land relations;
• defence sector;
• health care
• social protection.

More information about the strategy is available here. And those who are particularly curious can read the detailed opinion on the strategy for the 1st and 2nd reading.

What did the Anti-Corruption Strategy lose to be adopted?

The MPs did find a compromise and adopted the strategy, but among other things, they weakened the anti-corruption impact on the law enforcement block:

• They removed references to the introduction of competitive selection for the position of Prosecutor General.In other words, they refused to weaken political influence so that professionals, not ‘their own people’, including those without a law degree, could apply for the position.
• The specialised law enforcement committee of the Verkhovna Rada was particularly opposed to this because of the contradiction of this clause of the Constitution, which establishes the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General with the participation of the President and the Verkhovna Rada. However, it is not yet clear how this prevents an independent competition from being held before the appointment.
• The MPs also disagreed with the need to hold competitions for senior positions in the National Police and to minimise the possibility of political influence on the organisation of its activities.
• This proposal was based on the fact that the country is at war, and competitions are not generally held. Therefore, there is no reason to put the National Police in an unequal position.
• In our opinion, the real reasons have more to do with the previous point, which concerns the preservation of influence on appointments, than with competitions for ordinary civil servants.
• There were not enough votes to support amendment No. 511 (put to the vote in the Parliament and not confirmed), which proposed to establish that in the absence of the head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, all his powers are exercised by the first deputy head of the SAPO, not the Prosecutor General.
• This is a bad signal, as the saga of the non-appointment of the head of the SAPO has even become one of the EU's recommendations for the candidacy. This decision may have a negative impact on strengthening the SAPO's independence and the possibility of outside influence on its activities.

At the same time, the Rada postponed the implementation of measures to combat corruption in the defence sector until the end of the war - no earlier than 30 days after the end of martial law.

Such changes are logical given the objective impossibility of reforming the defence sector during the war. However, the future capability of our army depends to a large extent on their effective implementation.

Will this strategy work?

The Anti-Corruption Strategy is certainly an important foundation for a high-quality and effective approach to fighting corruption. Even the shortcomings of the document do not diminish its importance.

The strategy will be used to develop a State Programme, which will detail which government agency is responsible for what. It will also take time to develop. Therefore, the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy will take a maximum of 3 years instead of the planned 5.

The strategy contains many useful initiatives that need to be implemented in Ukraine. But any law without implementation is just a piece of paper. It becomes a real law only if it is implemented in a quality manner, which is possible thanks to the coordinated work of all government agencies and constant attention from society. After all, it is society that is the ‘beneficiary’ and ‘customer’ of all government decisions.

Source: Ukrayinska Pravda