NACP against changing agency audit criteria before its conduct - Pavlushchyk
Kyiv • UNN
The head of the NACP, Viktor Pavlushchyk, opposes changing the criteria for the external audit of the body's work before it is conducted, believing that this contradicts the principles of legal certainty and threatens independence. He also believes that attempts to bring the NACP audit criteria closer to those used to monitor the activities of NABU are an attempt to remove him from office.
The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) opposes changing the criteria for the external audit of the body's work before it is conducted. NACP Head Viktor Pavlushchyk believes that such steps contradict the principles of legal certainty and stated that the independence of the body is threatened, writes UNN.
Firstly, we are categorically against a situation where the rules of the game are changed during the game or even after it. This is like in football, when suddenly a team is "given" a three-goal handicap right during the match. The same applies to changing criteria retroactively: this is wrong from a legal and institutional point of view. This applies both to changes in criteria through a Cabinet of Ministers resolution and to changes in the audit model, when auditors determine the criteria themselves.
He emphasized that the audit should be consistent and conducted according to the rules that were in force during the period being checked. At the same time, the head of the NACP acknowledges the expediency of changing the inspection criteria given the new functions that the agency has received.
Pavlushchyk, commenting on possible changes in the approach to the NACP audit, noted that the criteria should not expand the grounds that potentially allow influencing the activities of the body or its leadership.
External audit is one of the guarantees of the institution's independence, so the criteria cannot contain norms that expand the range of grounds for the possibility of influencing the organization and its head, thereby creating a threat to these guarantees.
At the same time, Pavlushchyk considers attempts to bring the NACP audit criteria closer to those by which the activities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau were monitored as an attempt to remove him from office.
At the same time, he ignored the question of the fact that currently the system for evaluating the NACP's work is so complex that it nullifies the state's ability to react in a timely manner to problems in this body.
Speaking about the NACP's work, Pavlushchyk noted that this body "does not exist just to "supply ammunition" to NABU or SAP." Although before that he complained that the Agency cannot effectively check declarations and monitor lifestyle because it does not have the same powers as investigative bodies.
Instead, in his opinion, the body can change the psychology of society. "The NACP is capable of institutional prevention, changing the state's approaches and the psychology of society.
Recall
The activities of the NACP and its head, Viktor Pavlushchyk, have come under scrutiny not only due to the anti-corruption body's lack of effectiveness but also due to potential ethical issues.
In particular, journalists drew attention to the situation where the wife of the NACP head, Tetiana Vodopianova, was appointed director of a private company co-founded by former NABU deputy director Gizo Uglava.
The latter, after being dismissed from the Bureau due to disciplinary proceedings related to a possible information leak in the case of Supreme Court head Vsevolod Kniaziev, appealed to the NACP with a statement regarding a possible conflict of interest in the NABU leadership and received whistleblower status. Pavlushchyk himself denies any conflict of interest. However, the totality of all circumstances sparked a public discussion about whether it is normal that a former high-ranking NABU official, who received procedural protection from the NACP as a corruption whistleblower, is a co-founder of a company that provides income to the family of the head of the same Agency.
Even if the law is not formally violated, such a configuration of connections can create the impression of a close intertwining of personal, professional, and institutional interests.