International audit of NABU: controllers will have access to criminal proceedings of detectives

The long-awaited audit of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has begun, which should provide clear and unambiguous conclusions about the effectiveness of its work. A commission of international experts will have access to the materials of criminal proceedings of detectives and will be able to interview the bureau's employees, UNN writes.

According to the law, the NABU should be audited annually, but in fact it has not been conducted since 2015, i.e. not once since the bureau was established. Only after the International Monetary Fund identified an independent assessment of the bureau's activities as a structural beacon for financial assistance did it finally begin.

The NABU Public Control Council reported that the Cabinet-appointed commission, consisting of three international experts, has the right to:

• on access to the materials of criminal proceedings (with pre-trial investigation of the Bureau), 
• to interview the Bureau's employees, SAPO prosecutors, employees of other state and law enforcement agencies, etc,
• officially request information from government agencies, individuals or legal entities necessary for the audit.

The Commission itself approves and publishes the criteria and methodology for evaluating NABU's activities, and everything is funded by international technical assistance.

"No matter how long the audit is, the result should not be a vague document of the 'not everything is so clear' format. No, the result can be either white or black. So either the respected auditors will conclude that the NABU is working effectively and the Director is doing a good job. Or that the Bureau's work is ineffective and the Director is not performing his duties properly. The conclusion will be published on the Government's website so that you and I can read it," the PAC said.

Three "experienced and respected" foreign auditors will check the NABU's performance, but the Civil Oversight Council doubts that they "have encountered anything similar to Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions.

The same opinion is shared by Oleh Shram, a lawyer and former advisor to the State Bureau of Investigation .

"I doubt that foreigners who have never been to Ukraine, who do not know our realities, the state of corruption, the activities of anti-corruption bodies on a regular basis, will be able to give any significant result and objectively, independently and truly professionally assess the impact of this bureau's activities on the state of corruption in our country," he said in an exclusive commentary to UNN.

He also drew attention to the fact that it is not known for certain for what period the NABU's work will be audited – for the entire period of its existence or only for the last year.

In his opinion, there are serious doubts that this will really be an audit, and not "an assessment of the internal processes of the bureau." Shram believes that international experts are likely to assess how certain NABU departments interact with each other, instead of giving the public an answer to the main question - whether the bureau really affects the state of corruption in Ukraine.

"In my deepest conviction, no. The Bureau is inefficient, selective and takes a long time to investigate. I doubt whether external auditors will confirm these conclusions. They don't know the language, they won't be able to study the proceedings, they won't be able to communicate properly, and in the end, I think they will sign a conclusion that will be written for them, something like the conclusion on the NACP that we saw last year, when they found some organizational internal shortcomings, but on the other hand, they did not recognize the NACP's work as unsatisfactory: they say, work, train further," the lawyer believes.

According to Oleh Shram, the fact that the criteria and methodology of the assessment are approved by the auditors themselves is also a cause for concern. 

"Once we see the criteria and methodology, we will be able to analyze what the report will be about. And this is again wrong, because auditors must be clearly limited by law so that the methodology is truly objective and comprehensive. And if they set criteria that do not relate to the main issue I am talking about - checking the Bureau for corruption - then of course we will not get answers to the questions," he added.

Despite experts' warnings, if the assessment of NABU's activities is comprehensive and objective, the audit report could be key to the bureau's future work and play an important role in planning reforms.

Add

Recently, the public has raised many questions about the work of NABU detectives. In particular, there are frequent statements about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine. This, among other things, was stated by the recently dismissed First Deputy Director of the Bureau Gizo Uglava. He has repeatedly hinted that decisions at the NABU are made under the influence of external factors, not on the basis of the law. Among the individuals and institutions that he believes exerted this pressure were activists of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) and the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, used to work at the AntAC.

Uglava has repeatedly emphasized that the actions against him indicate serious problems in the NABU investigation process, which is focused on achieving external goals rather than establishing the truth.

The same opinion is supported by lawyerswho also stated that the real goal of anti-corruption activists has turned from fighting corruption to putting pressure on certain public officials to achieve "external" goals.

In addition, the lawyer community is sounding the alarm over the idea of NABU Director Semen Kryvonos to create his own forensic expertise at the bureau, because "their" experts in the investigation have nothing to do with an independent investigation.