Political expert: Anti-corruption activists must first prove their effectiveness, and then demand the creation of their own expert institution
Kyiv • UNN
Taras Zahorodniy believes that NABU should first undergo an audit and show the results of its work. Creating its own expert institution for the NABU could lead to examinations of dubious quality.
The creation of a separate expert institution for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine will allow detectives to “rivet” examinations of unknown quality. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive commentary to UNN by political scientist Taras Zahorodniy.
“What does it mean to have your own expert institution? Does this mean they will be making up their own expertise? Of unknown quality. I am categorically against the expansion without specific conclusions,” Zahorodniy said.
He emphasized that the first step is to audit the work of anti-corruption bodies and see what they spend money and resources on.
"When they say that they lack something, they need to conduct an audit. For eight years, an uncontrolled structure has been operating, showing poor results, involved in many scandals, and now expansion?" the political scientist points out.
Context
NABU Director Semen Kryvonos continues to insist on creating an expert institution at the Bureau.
This idea was criticized in the society. Critics of the creation of a new expert institution at the NABU point out that international experts have previously expressed doubts about the objectivity of examinations conducted within the NABU.
In addition, NABU detectives are often caught “painting” forensic examinations they need. In particular, they order them from their acquaintances, and the NACP turns a blind eye. And expert opinions that they do not need are “leaked” and attempted to be canceled, as was the case with the former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi.
In general, the “drawing” of examinations by detectives often leads to acquittals by the HACC. This is what happened with the case of ex-minister Volodymyr Omelian, who was acquitted, and the repeatedly closed Rotterdam+ case. According to lawyer Iryna Odynets, the NABU lost in court because during the investigation, detectives in these cases “painted” forensic examinations in friendly private offices, and then unsuccessfully tried to confirm their accusations with them. Volodymyr Omelyan himself also noted that detectives engaged “dubious experts” during the investigation of the case against him.
Given the repeated facts of such manipulations, the idea of NABU head Semen Kryvonos to create his own expert institution for the bureau looks extremely alarming. In this case, there may be many more “painted” examinations, and thus NABU investigations may turn into biased persecutions similar to the mass political terror of the Soviet NKVD.
