Paperwork: why the NACP under Pavlushchyk reduces the fight against corruption to reports and recommendations
Kyiv • UNN
Despite a wide arsenal of anti-corruption tools, the question of the real effectiveness of the NACP's activities is increasingly arising. Under the leadership of Viktor Pavlushchyk, the Agency mostly focuses on procedures, reports, and recommendations. As a result, the fight against corruption risks remaining only "on paper."
The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) has at its disposal a full set of tools for preventing, detecting, and combating corruption. As NACP Head Viktor Pavlushchyk noted in an interview, these tools include: a strategy, a state program, monitoring, anti-corruption authorized persons in state enterprises, and a whistleblower protection program, UNN reports. However, a number of high-profile corruption cases in the public sector have cast doubt on the real effectiveness of these tools.
NACP Head Viktor Pavlushchyk repeatedly avoided a direct answer in the interview to the question of why anti-corruption prevention did not work. Instead, he tried to explain the lack of real results in the fight against corruption by the complexity of processes, limited powers, and the need to adhere to procedures. When journalists suggested analyzing the "Energoatom" case as an example of a systemic prevention failure, Pavlushchyk began with generalizations, effectively refusing to directly assess the specific situation.
To give a full answer, one needs to work with specific data and analyze it professionally. To expect that there is some universal pill for corruption is naive. Even in European countries, about 70% of citizens are convinced that corruption is quite widespread in the EU countries in general.
At the same time, the head of the NACP admits that the agency conducted an inspection of "Energoatom", but limits the responsibility of the department.
In January 2025, the NACP drew up an act of inspection of the organization of work on preventing and detecting corruption in the company and provided a number of recommendations.
Based on his words, it can be concluded that the role of the modern NACP is reduced to recommendations, prescriptions, and risk assessment – without real influence on financial flows or procurement processes, where, in fact, corruption is formed.
To accusations about the lack of real influence of the NACP on the implementation of the anti-corruption program, Pavlushchyk responds by appealing to formal procedures. According to him, the agency acts exclusively within the framework of the tools defined by law. In fact, the head of the NACP reduces the role of the agency to internal correspondence, reports, and formal informing of other authorities.
War, system resistance, and "small steps"
In addition, among the reasons that, according to Pavlushchyk, hinder achieving results, he names the war, limited resources, and system resistance. In his opinion, it is incorrect to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-corruption policy without taking these factors into account.
The effectiveness should be assessed taking into account real conditions: whether the measure can be implemented during wartime, with limited resources, and occupied territories. The system's resistance was indeed colossal.
NACP's missed deadline
Another marker of the modern NACP's work was the situation with the new anti-corruption strategy for 2026-2030. The document was supposed to be prepared in August, but the deadlines were missed. Explaining the delay, Pavlushchyk again appealed to the process, not the result.
For us, the key is not speed, but the quality of documents.
Thus, even basic strategic documents that are supposed to define the state's anti-corruption policy for years to come are being postponed without clear deadlines and public accountability.
Effectiveness of NACP's work under Pavlushchyk's leadership
From the NACP head's answers, a complete picture emerges: anti-corruption policy under Pavlushchyk's leadership exists primarily in the format of procedures, acts, reports, and strategies. The NACP identifies risks, prepares recommendations, and reports on the implementation of program points, but avoids the role of a leader who directly names problems and those who block them.
As a result, the fight against corruption increasingly resembles a process according to instructions – with compliance with all formal requirements, but without a tangible impact on systemic corruption risks, which continue to be realized in practice.
Recall
The activities of the NACP and its head Viktor Pavlushchyk came 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, received the position of director of a private company co-founded by former NABU deputy director Gizo Uglava.
The latter, after dismissal from the Bureau due to disciplinary proceedings related to a possible information leak in the case of the head of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Kniaziev, applied 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 caused 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.