The lawyers complained to the NABU Public Control Council about alleged pressure on their client by the detective investigating the case. The POC plans to appeal to the leadership of the anti-corruption bureau to verify this information. This was reported by the Council, UNN writes.
Details
Last week, the NABU building hosted an offline meeting of the Public Oversight Council, to which the bureau's director, Semen Kryvonos, and his first deputy, Denys Gulmahomedov, and the head of the First Main Detective Unit, Oleksandr Abakumov, were invited.
One of the key issues discussed during the meeting was a complaint by lawyers against the actions of a detective investigating one of the Bureau's cases.
They (the lawyers - ed.) claim that there may have been an element of pressure on their client by the detective (investigating the case). We are acting as mediators here and have heard the side of the lawyers and, in response to their accusations, the side of the detectives. The PAC will also send a written appeal to the NABU. And then we will have a complete picture of whether there were violations by the detectives
In addition, the meeting reviewed the problems and support of the work of the disciplinary commission, which, among other things, considered the issue of possible pressure on the part of the former first deputy director of the NABU, Gizo Uglava, on his subordinate.
The participants also discussed the format of interviews with candidates. In particular, representatives of the PKC demanded that online broadcasts of meetings be restored, and that the requirements for candidates for certain positions be revised. This mainly concerned the qualification criteria for technical positions.
Recall
Recently, the European Court of Human Rights foundthat NABU detectives violated the rights of lawyer Oleksandr Sergienko. Now Ukraine must pay him 15 thousand euros in compensation. Oleksandr Sergienko is the lawyer of former MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko and is a defendant along with him in the “gas” case. After the ECHR ruling, Onishchenko's lawyers said that this decision could seriously affect the entire “gas case”, as the court found gross violations by detectives at the pre-trial investigation stage, as well as numerous abuses and violations of the rights of both the defendants and the defense.
Add
Recently, the public has accumulated many questions about the work of NABU detectives . In particular, there are frequent statements about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine. This, among other things, was stated by the recently dismissed First Deputy Director of the Bureau Gizo Uglava. He has repeatedly hinted that decisions at the NABU are made under the influence of external factors, not on the basis of the law. Among the individuals and institutions that he believes exerted this pressure were activists of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) and the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, used to work at the AntAC.
Uglava has repeatedly emphasized that the actions against him indicate serious problems in the NABU investigation process, which is focused on achieving external goals rather than establishing the truth.
The same opinion is supported by lawyerswho also stated that the real goal of anti-corruption activists has turned from fighting corruption to putting pressure on certain public officials to achieve “external” goals.
In addition , human rights activists are sounding the alarm about systematic violations of the presumption of innocence by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors.
This was documented, in particular, in the Shadow Report to Chapter 23 “Justice and Fundamental Rights” of the European Commission's 2023 Report on Ukraine, prepared by a coalition of NGOs. According to the document, in a number of court cases, judges recorded violations of the principle of presumption of innocence by NABU detectives who, in public comments and interviews, actually “appointed” the defendants guilty.
Often, high-profile accusations of top officials by the NABU result in acquittals. An example is the case of former Minister Volodymyr Omelyan. He was accused of budget losses due to the reduction of port fees that he introduced. But in court, all the arguments of SAPO detectives and prosecutors were shattered as worthless. By the way, neither the NABU detectives nor the SAPO prosecutors have ever publicly apologized to Omelyan or been punished for illegally bringing him to criminal responsibility.
A similar story may happen to former Minister Mykola Solsky, who was accused in May of misappropriating land in Sumy region in favor of ATO fighters. This story is already eight years old, and the reasonable timeframe of the investigation has been exhausted, but detectives decided to report it only this year. Moreover, at the time when Solsky achieved results in negotiations with the Poles on the export of agricultural products.
However, the publicly available materials indicate dubious evidence of the detectives, as evidenced by the expert opinion of manipulation with the examinations in this case. They tried to “leak” one of them and annul it through the court - probably because such an examination testified to the innocence of the former minister.