ARMA closure: how Olena Duma deprived the agency of public control

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) has been operating for three months without a key instrument of public oversight over the agency's activities. This situation, according to experts, is beneficial to the head of the agency, Olena Duma, because the lack of control allows avoiding public consideration of controversial issues, and creates risks for transparency, UNN writes.

Details

Back in September, all members of the public council decided to resign  due to systematic violations of the law on public involvement in ARMA's activities by the ARMA leadership. The council members stated that their appeals were regularly ignored and access to discussions of regulations was blocked. This deprived the public of the opportunity to exercise real control over the management of seized property.

According to experts, after the termination of the powers of the members of the Public Council, the Head of ARMA, in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, had to re-elect or elect a new composition.

Former members of the public council noted in comments to UNN that during Olena Duma's tenure, the agency systematically avoided cooperation with the public.

"Throughout our communication with the Head of ARMA, we have seen her unwillingness to be controlled by the public. Therefore, all our requests were ignored or answers were provided that were not relevant to the substance of the requests," said Ihor Chobitko, former head of the Public Council at ARMA.

Former secretary of the public council Dmytro Hromakov adds that the absence of a public council allows for avoidance of criticism and makes violations possible.

"Three months without a public council, when no one points out her (Olena Duma - ed.) mistakes, most likely, it shows that she is comfortable working in a dark, non-transparent situation and, let's say, when no one pays attention to the violations that are possible in this situation. After all, the public will never know what happened during these three months. So, of course, it is always more convenient than running a transparent project," he said .

The secrecy of ARMA's work and the disregard for transparency call into question the agency's ability to effectively manage seized assets. This is now a question not only for the agency's management, but also for the bodies that are supposed to control the exercise of its powers.

Add

Transparency International Ukraine emphasized that ARMA often has "contradictory communication from the agency or its officials, combined with populism, violation of the presumption of innocence and lack of understanding of the competence of state bodies".

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency decided not to comment on Transparency International Ukraine's remarks about "contradictory communication" on the part of the agency's officials, and instead spoke about their "achievements" in drafting laws.

This is not the only criticism of the ARMA due to populism. Earlier, experts emphasized that the agency focuses more on politically high-profile cases related to oligarchs than on the effective preservation and management of transferred assets. It is worth noting that in her public speeches, Olena Duma has repeatedly emphasized the transfer of assets of oligarchs Dmytro Firtash, Mikhail Fridman and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to ARMA as one of the "achievements" of her work.