The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) outlined their proposals for "increasing the institutional capacity" of NABU and SAPO in a letter to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko. UNN analyzed this letter.
The letter was addressed to Svyrydenko on November 20, 2025, allegedly as a result of a meeting of the heads of these bodies, government representatives, and EU ambassadors regarding the implementation of measures for the Road Map on the Rule of Law.
NABU and SAPO heads Semen Kryvonos and Oleksandr Klymenko outlined proposals in the letter that, in their opinion, would increase the effectiveness of anti-corruption bodies. These include eliminating procedural obstacles to effective activity; increasing institutional capacity, creating an independent expert institution, and preventing information leaks.
The outlined directions may seem quite logical at first glance, however, a more thorough analysis of each of the proposed steps raises questions.
For example, the creation of an independent expert institution for conducting examinations in criminal proceedings investigated by NABU. This means that it is proposed to create another institution of forensic experts who will work exclusively for NABU. The issue of NABU financing such an institution seems to be of little concern.
NABU and SAPO are also dissatisfied with the current procedure for extending the terms of pre-trial investigation.
"The current version of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, regarding the calculation, extension, and termination of pre-trial investigation terms, significantly complicates the effective fulfillment of the tasks of criminal proceedings," the letter states.
Kryvonos and Klymenko propose to transfer the right to extend investigation terms to the prosecutor – thus removing the "obstacle" in the form of an investigating judge. They also emphasize the inexpediency of judicial control over the extension of pre-trial investigation terms. That is, NABU and SAPO seek complete independence in determining reasonable investigation terms. This could lead to even greater delays in the investigation process, where suspects, in the worst cases, will remain in pre-trial detention for years without proven guilt. And this could lead to a wave of complaints to the ECHR from such "hostages" of anti-corruption bodies. And, as practice shows, the European Court of Human Rights readily satisfies complaints about detention conditions and excessive time spent in Ukrainian pre-trial detention centers, awarding compensation that must be paid from the Ukrainian budget.
NABU and SAPO are also not satisfied with the statutes of limitations for criminal liability. As a general rule, established in Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a person is released from criminal liability if, from the day of committing a criminal offense until the day the verdict enters into force, the terms established by this article have passed (from 2 to 15 years depending on the severity of the criminal offense). This norm fully corresponds to general European practice, where for some corruption crimes the statute of limitations does not exceed 5 years.
Among other "innovations" proposed by the leadership of anti-corruption bodies is the proposal to significantly limit the publication in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions of rulings and decisions within the proceedings they investigate. Details on how this should be limited are not provided in the letter; it only states that some decisions should be published within certain deadlines, and some should have limited access.
Kryvonos and Klymenko are also dissatisfied with the insufficient breadth of their powers. For example, they consider the procedural powers of the SAPO head in proceedings against people's deputies to be insufficient. It is proposed to effectively remove the Prosecutor General from the process of launching investigations against people's deputies, granting the SAPO head the right to enter relevant information into the ERDR. According to representatives of anti-corruption bodies, it is precisely the absence of such capabilities in the chief anti-corruption prosecutor that delays pre-trial investigations against members of parliament.
NABU, in turn, seeks independent regulation of jurisdiction and expansion of the circle of officials falling under their jurisdiction. But what about top-level corruption – isn't that what the National Bureau and SAPO are called to fight? This point also raises concerns in the context of the not-so-high effectiveness of anti-corruption bodies, which was confirmed by the audit conducted in 2025, the data of which directly indicate that although cases are opened, they often get stuck at the pre-trial investigation stage, where they remain for years. The report also indicated that the number of suspects in the defense sector decreased from 25 (9.7% of suspects) in 2023 to 7 (3% of suspects) in 2024. The number of accused in the defense sector decreased from 19 (8% of accused) in 2023 to 15 (6% of accused) in 2024. Isn't this strange statistics for a country at war? Such indicators suggest that NABU should not expand the circle of those falling under its jurisdiction, but rather review its priorities. In addition, it should work on its own effectiveness, as it has been repeatedly pointed out that it is precisely the employees of anti-corruption bodies who miss and violate the deadlines for pre-trial investigations.
Another interesting point is that the Bureau and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office are very concerned about the financial provision of the judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court. They propose to abolish the limitation of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which is used to determine the basic size of the official salary of a judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Currently, such a "fixed" subsistence minimum is 2102 hryvnias, and judges' salaries are calculated based on it. According to 2025 data, it exceeded 155 thousand hryvnias per month.
There is an obvious desire to reduce control over their activities, which can lead to an imbalance between the investigation, the prosecution, and the court. And also significantly reduce the transparency of the work of the "anti-corruption triad," which has already become almost a closed club of the chosen. Of course, one can argue and insist on the need for effective ensuring of the independence of these bodies. But – is ineffective and unbalanced independence worth creating risks of human rights violations? And one more thing that NABU and SAPO apparently forgot – the current Criminal Procedure Code was adopted at the request of the Council of Europe and international partners. Therefore, the norms enshrined in it, perhaps not perfectly, but correspond to general European ones.