Against the backdrop of the generation of anti-corruption investigations in Ukraine, another, less noticeable but strategically important conflict has flared up - between the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and a group of Kyiv lawyers led by Dmytro Borzykh, who, according to observers, have turned from participants in the process into its driving force.
This legal and political battle has already been dubbed "NABUgate" - not only because of the high-profile actions, but also because of the exposure of a hidden attempt to monopolize the very essence of justice by anti-corruption activists.
"Law enforcers in robes": lawyers who played in the NABU field - and won
The key to understanding the conflict is the methodology. The lawyers of Borzykh's group operate in a system they understand well: analytics, forecasting decisions, assessing the workload of judges, and searching for vulnerabilities in the case. According to NABU Director Semen Kryvonos, these lawyers "possess the methods of law enforcement officers" - and this is what struck the Bureau the most. Behind the scenes, NABU recognizes these lawyers as "the most influential in Ukraine".
In fact, they play NABU's game - but legally, and better. They use open databases, study judicial analytics, assess prospects even before arrests, predict algorithms of procedural actions - and as a result, they outplay detectives in every process.
In response, NABU initiated a criminal case against the lawyers themselves - under an article that has nothing to do with corruption (Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and is not under the jurisdiction of NABU itself.
As part of it, searches were conducted in the law office, documents covered by attorney-client privilege were seized, and conversations between lawyers and clients - who are defendants in cases investigated by the Bureau - were wiretapped.
"NABU is not used to the fact that someone has appeared in the system who plays better than them - and is not afraid to win," lawyers joke.
When justice loses its limits: children as "defendants"
A separate resonance was caused by the case of detention of minors, who were tried to be used as a "weak link" in criminal proceedings. The violations were egregious:
• detention without the right to call a lawyer or relatives;
• lack of procedural guarantees;
• detention in inappropriate places for almost two hours.
Lawyers consider this a public demonstration of force by the weak, and human rights activists - a sign of personal revenge and loss of ethical boundaries.
Pressure on publicity - a new level of conflict
Discussions are also underway to restrict public access to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, up to the deletion of case numbers. This will make independent analysis, journalistic investigations, public control impossible and weaken the position of the defense in cases with pre-politicized conclusions.
The final line of defense - the bar
The conflict between NABU and the Borzykh group is not only personal. It is a systemic signal about the line that is crossed from justice to administrative control. Lawyers who possess the tools of the state, but are not part of it, for the first time in a long time put a mirror in front of NABU - and demonstrated that the rules must work both ways.