“The case of Minister Solskyi”: NABU urged to announce the fate of ATO soldiers who received land allegedly owned by NAAS

There is an important detail missing from the story of the suspicion of Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky: NABU is silent about the fate of ATO soldiers who received land plots that allegedly belonged to the National Agrarian Academy of Ukraine. This was stated in a commentary to UNN by former adviser to the director of the State Bureau of Investigation, lawyer Oleh Shram.

Details

"We have not heard from NABU that these ATO soldiers had no right to the land plots. That is, it turns out that they received them legally. On what grounds should they be deprived of the right to land plots that they received in accordance with the procedure established by law and exercised their right under the law," Shram said.

We are talking about 1,200 ATO soldiers who privatized land plots in Sumy region that the National Academy of Sciences considered theirs.

According to the NABU detectives, in 2017, ATO soldiers allegedly took possession of other people's land in this way, and Mykola Solskyi, who was a lawyer at the time, helped them. However, if a lawyer is suspected, then, according to the logic of the investigation, all 1200 ATO soldiers should be suspected. However, detectives have not yet set a "record" for the number of suspicions in one case.

"The point is that the ATO soldiers who were allocated this land were supposed to have given an obligation to sell or lease it in advance. They did it voluntarily, so what questions can there be? A person legally received a land plot and simply promised to sell it, to give it to a certain person, what is illegal about that? If they had illegally obtained the land and promised to do so, then yes, it would be a crime and there would be something to do. If they did it under duress, it is also a crime, but what if they voluntarily promised to do it? Well, then anyone can do it. For example, I received a land plot, exercised the right granted by law, but I will sell it right away, do I have the right to do so?" the lawyer explains the situation.

Shram is also surprised by the way this case is presented to the public. According to him, it may seem that the current minister committed a crime while in office. However, as the lawyer emphasizes, this is not true at all.

"The fact that the NABU is investigating cases from 5 years ago is not surprising. If you look at all the cases, most of them, except for those involving bribery, are old cases. But the way they present this case. In 2017-2018, Solsky probably never dreamed of being a member of parliament, or a chairman of a committee of the Verkhovna Rada, or even a minister. But they present this information as a crime committed by the current minister. They draw signs and diagrams and write 'Minister' everywhere. Probably, this is some kind of PR for them, on the one hand, saying, look, what a high-ranking official we have exposed, although in fact it is not true, he was just a lawyer at the time, or held some position in private structures," Shram notes.

Recall

NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors served a notice of suspicion to Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi of allegedly organizing a scheme to seize 2,500 hectares of NAAS land.

Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago relate to the period of his lawyer's activity, long before his appointment as minister. His defense lawyers  claim that Solsky did not benefit from the fact that ATO soldiers acquired the right to the land.

In 2019, the Supreme Court put an end to the litigation over the disputed land plots. The decision of the panel of judges of the Commercial Court of Cassation confirmed the decisions of the courts of previous instances that SE Iskra and SE Nadiya of the National Agrarian Academy of Sciences do not have state acts for the right to permanent use of these land plots.

"In dismissing the claim, the courts of previous instances concluded that there was no evidence of the transfer of the disputed land plots to the plaintiffs by way of succession, as different acts of transfer of land funds indicated different areas of land plots transferred from one enterprise to another, and that the fact of registration of the right to permanent use of land plots by legal entities whose successors are the plaintiffs had not been proved," the Supreme Court ruling reads.

NAAS land bank was empty before privatization: negligence of "agrarian scientists" was to blameApr 30 2024, 05:32 AM • 420684 views