Abuse of international funds and agreed lists: Zharnakov's interrogation commented by the head of the parliamentary temporary investigative commission

Serhiy Vlasenko, head of the parliamentary Provisional Investigative Commission on Corruption in the Law Enforcement and Judicial Systems, announced the findings of the interrogation of Mykhailo Zhernakov, executive director of the DEJURE Foundation NGO, UNN reports.

In his Facebook post, Vlasenko noted that the commission reviewed allegations previously made by civil society representatives regarding Zhernakov's possible influence on the formation of the Public Integrity Council (PIC), possible misuse of international technical assistance funds, and interference in the process of electing members of the fourth convocation of the PIC. The issue of distributing lists with recommendations on whom to vote for among meeting participants was also examined.

According to the TCC, the DEJURE Foundation and its affiliated organizations may have gained control over 13 out of 19 PIC members as a result of these processes. The commission emphasizes that the PIC plays a key role in evaluating candidates for judicial positions, and its conclusions significantly influence the formation of the judiciary.

"These people (PIC members) strongly influence the composition of the judiciary that we, as citizens of Ukraine, receive. And to independently assess the 'integrity' of judicial candidates, these PIC members must be independent, professional, and impartial," Vlasenko noted.

Key points, which, according to People's Deputy and Head of the TCC Vlasenko, were made during the interrogation:

1. Funding of PIC members. Zhernakov confirmed that DEJURE made selective payments to individual PIC members of the third and fourth convocations for "work related to the council's activities," despite the fact that this activity is defined by law as unpaid. He did not explain the selection criteria.

2. Process of forming the PIC. Zhernakov could not provide clear explanations regarding the principles for selecting candidates that his organization and partner NGOs delegated to the council.

3. Prior agreement of lists. According to Zhernakov, lists of candidates with voting marks were indeed agreed upon in advance. And he considers this practice acceptable.

4. Grant for the PIC secretariat. Zhernakov confirmed the existence of a grant received for the formation of the PIC secretariat, which was not used in time.

5. Influence of affiliated NGOs. Three public organizations, whose leaders are members of DEJURE's governing bodies, together put forward 13 out of 19 candidates, i.e., an absolute majority that can make the necessary decisions.

6. Financial transfers to individual entrepreneurs. Zhernakov admitted that he transferred funds from international partners to his own individual entrepreneur account, although he initially denied it.

7. Memorandum between the PIC and DEJURE. Zhernakov confirmed the initiation of a document that provides for a special format of cooperation with the PIC. It was signed by 13 council members, nine of whom, according to the TCC, received payments from Zhernakov's organization.

8. Assessment of changes in the judicial system. When asked about improvements in the work of courts in recent years, Zhernakov did not provide a specific answer.

The head of the TCC summarized that what was heard raises serious concerns, given the influence of the Public Integrity Council on the selection of future judges and the need to ensure the independence and impartiality of the council members.

Zhernakov, in turn, rejects all accusations of possible machinations and states that the PIC is currently participating in an "historic recruitment" of 550 judges to appellate courts.

Recall

The process of electing judges to appellate courts is also accompanied by a loud scandal. At least 70 lawsuits have been filed with the Supreme Court due to alleged machinations by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) during the competition. The reason was the procedure by which the HQCJ selected judges. Participants claim that the competition was non-transparent, judges close to the HQCJ and the High Council of Justice won, and the review of works took place outside the electronic system. In particular, Ruslan Raimov, assistant to the head of the HQCJ, a member of the examination commission, who lived and worked in Russia until 2019, and was deemed dishonest during an attempt to get a job at the Prosecutor General's Office, won the competition.

Andriy Pasichnyk, head of the HQCJ, confirmed during his interrogation by the parliamentary TCC that he checked the candidates' works at home, having printed them out beforehand. After checking, according to him, he burned all the works. A criminal proceeding has been opened based on these facts.

Meanwhile, in the expert community, the absence of legally enshrined criteria for "integrity" and manipulations related to this are being discussed. The compliance with integrity of those who conduct integrity competitions is also crucial.

"How can we expect a fair, impartial, and professional selection of judges if delegation to the PIC is carried out by individuals who themselves demonstrate behavior incompatible with basic standards of respect, integrity, and responsibility?

The mechanism, created in 2016 as a tool for cleansing the judicial system, today risks being discredited by those who, instead of integrity, demonstrate contempt and outright disrespect for state institutions and representatives of the people.

The PIC should be a symbol of professionalism, ethics, and civic maturity. But if the people involved in its formation publicly demonstrate the opposite, this is no longer an isolated incident, but a challenge to the entire system of building fair justice," notes lawyer Dmytro Buzanov.