10 years of impunity and the decline of the anti-corruption flagship: what the first "annual" audit of NABU showed

Despite the legislative requirement to conduct an annual audit, an external assessment of NABU's effectiveness was carried out for the first time in 10 years - and only partially. The audit covered the period from March 2023 to November 2024, i.e. it did not cover most of the high-profile events that shaped public attitudes towards the Bureau, including the period of leadership of Artem Sytnyk and his deputy Gizo Uglava. This is stated in the full version of the NABU audit, conducted with the participation of international experts, reports UNN.

Despite the limited time coverage, the audit revealed systemic problems: formal control, lack of real accountability, weak efficiency and the desire of the body to act exclusively and autonomously from the rest of the law enforcement system. Formally, NABU received "moderate efficiency". In fact, it is slightly higher than 0 points in order to "save" the director of the Bureau from being checked for inefficiency.

The main problems identified by the audit relate to both external factors and internal chaos.

Integrity controllers themselves

The report noted that "NABU has not introduced procedures for conducting situation modeling as a form of integrity checks. Instead, the head of the Internal Control Unit prepared a memo for the NABU Director, in which he explained why he believes that the Internal Control Unit's procedures comply with international practice and proposed to consider the Internal Control Unit's methods for conducting integrity checks as effective and to record the relevant recommendation of the 2023 Technical Assessment as implemented. The NABU Director gave his approval. The working group on the implementation of the technical assessment recommendations closed this recommendation as implemented on the basis of the memo".

The auditors emphasized that the effectiveness of checking the lifestyle of detectives is actually zero: "The KPI for lifestyle monitoring simply states that the Internal Control Unit will monitor the lifestyle of 100% of employees for whom there is information about possible discrepancies between expenses and income. This KPI does not give an idea of the effectiveness or efficiency of lifestyle monitoring, and the relatively small number of monitoring activities per year reduces the significance of this indicator in terms of results".

By the way, the recent scandal with the crypto wallets of NABU detectives was publicly ignored by Semen Kryvonos - no comments or measures were announced by him. 

In other words, investigations against employees and management of the Bureau either do not take place at all, or have no results.

"As of today, NABU has not carried out any effective criminal proceedings regarding information leaks by its own employees during the pre-trial investigation - which poses a significant reputational threat to the Bureau", the report says (p. 5). 

Not a single case to court, not a single indictment, despite dozens of public scandals and statements - the internal control department has not carried out anything.

The Internal Control Department (ICD) checked itself and evaluated itself.

In 2023, the ICD submitted a note stating that all recommendations of the previous technical assessment had been implemented. However, "The Commission independently reviewed the ICD's memo and disagrees with its arguments and conclusions" (p. 37).

Moreover, the NABU Director personally controls all internal investigations: "Currently, the NABU Director approves all internal investigations, and in some cases exercises "direct supervision" over the investigation. The NABU Director exercised such direct supervision over one high-profile internal investigation during the evaluation period.

Before starting an internal investigation, the head of the ICD discusses the issue with the NABU Director. The NABU Director may express his opinion before granting permission for the investigation and fact-finding. It appears that this happened in at least one case during the evaluation period. In particular, the High Anti-Corruption Court sent a case to NABU regarding a possible violation of the presumption of innocence after NABU detectives publicly disclosed sensitive information in a podcast. According to information provided to the Commission, the NABU Director concluded that an internal investigation was not warranted because the Bureau itself encouraged the detectives to participate in the podcast. The NABU Director acknowledged holding discussions prior to the commencement of the investigation, noting that from time to time the information provided by the Head of the ICD in the memo on the commencement of the investigation is insufficient for the Director to decide on the advisability of conducting an internal investigation. The NABU Director told the Commission that he does not comment on possible disciplinary violations on the merits", the report said. (p. 41).

Systemic information leaks - without consequences

"According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the investigation of the disclosure of data on operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation is the responsibility of the relevant body. In NABU, this should mean the GPU, not the ICU. In the situation with the "leak" in 2024 (the scandal with the former first deputy director of the bureau, Gizo Uglava - ed.), the head of the SAP ordered the ICU to register and investigate the case. The Commission was informed that this pre-trial investigation is still open. Currently, NABU does not have any successful criminal investigations related to leaks of pre-trial investigation information committed by NABU employees.... Information leakage is a chronic problem for NABU and all other Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the Prosecutor's Office. Investigating leaks is a difficult task, especially in the Ukrainian criminal justice system, in which many parties have access to sensitive information. Information leakage undermines public confidence in institutions, regardless of whether the leak occurs for an illegal purpose (e.g., informing a criminal offender of an upcoming search) or for a purportedly noble purpose (e.g., providing information to an investigative journalist). NABU should continue to focus on implementing and monitoring effective control mechanisms to prevent and detect leaks", the report emphasizes (p. 33).

By the way, while the auditors were recording numerous NABU violations regarding information leaks, the detectives committed another egregious incident - a story is already being prepared about it.

Whistleblowers are afraid to complain

"A former NABU employee told the Commission that his supervisor said: it's better for you to complain less to internal control" (p. 37).

According to a survey of NABU employees in 2024, 55 out of 462 employees had witnessed or were personally acquainted with someone who had witnessed ethical violations or misconduct in the past 3 years. In addition, when asked whether violations of ethical conduct or integrity were widespread, 21% of respondents said that these were not widespread practices, but there were isolated cases, 2% said that these were widespread practices, and 39% said that they did not know or did not have an opinion on this issue.

"No violations of procedural rules" - despite the ECHR decision

Paradoxically, "The Commission did not find any violations of procedural law by NABU during the assessed period" (p. 5). But this contradicts, in particular, the ECHR decision in the case of "Serhiienko v. Ukraine", where the court found violations of rights by NABU.

No function is assessed as "effective": failure at all levels

"No function received the highest score (3 points)" (p. 6). This conclusion of the auditors means that no area of NABU's activity - from detection to investigation and support of cases - meets the level that is considered effective. All indicators are at the level of "moderate" or "sufficient" efficiency.

According to the audit methodology, 3 points is the standard of effective work, when the system consistently delivers results, meets best practices and demonstrates consistent quality. The scores received by NABU are lower in all categories.

The highest of them - 2 points - was awarded for the areas of "international cooperation" and "detection of top corruption", although, as the auditors themselves note, only 7% of suspects are really high-ranking officials (p. 18). All other areas are rated at 1 point - "moderately effective", not even "sufficiently effective".

NABU really often duplicates the functions of the SBU, SBI or police. And as stated in the report:

"The Commission was unable to independently verify the accuracy of NABU's statistical data. The data has an uncertain level of reliability" (p. 4). That is, NABU's results are not verifiable and remain without independent confirmation.

Priority - resources, not efficiency

Despite all the criticism, NABU's appetites are growing, and they publicly want:

• its own unit for wiretapping;

• its own expert institution;

• official telephones for employees;

• an additional 200 employees - up to 1,000 staff units.

This is despite the fact that NABU already has its own prosecutors (SAP) and its own court (HACC), unlike any other law enforcement agency in Ukraine.

Defense sector - failed

"Decrease in indicators in the defense sector - 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 defendants in the defense sector decreased from 19 (8% of defendants) in 2023 to 15 (6% of defendants) in 2024", the report said. (p. 17). 

The auditors draw attention to the fact that, despite the declared priority, the real activity in investigations is limited to minor figures.

An audit is needed not only for NABU

"The Commission recommends conducting a similar assessment of the effectiveness of the SAP and the HACC" (p. 6), as the system of anti-corruption bodies should be checked comprehensively, not partially.

Conclusion as a verdict

The audit showed: lack of results of self-control; uninvestigated leaks; low percentage of cases of top corruption; lack of transparent statistics; systemic desire for isolation from other bodies, and most importantly - distrust on the part of Ukrainians who maintain "moderately effective" bodies.

"According to a survey of Ukrainian citizens in May 2023, distrust of NABU is expressed more often than trust (49% do not trust the institution, and 30% trust it). The difference between trust and distrust of NABU is - 18.9%", the report said.