Voting for or against Solsky's resignation is expected during the plenary week: what agribusiness players say

A vote for or against the resignation of Mykola Solsky as Minister of Agrarian Policy is expected during the next plenary week. MPs are refraining from commenting on the upcoming vote, but agricultural market players have defended the minister and positively  assessed his activities, UNN reports.

Details

In comments to UNN, MPs said that the vote on the future of Mykola Solsky as Minister of Agrarian Policy is expected to take place in the next plenary week. According to preliminary information, this issue will be submitted to the Verkhovna Rada's Agricultural Committee on May 7.

At the same time, MPs refrain from making statements about the upcoming vote, but some of them positively assessed Solsky's performance as Minister of Agricultural Policy.

Leading players in the agricultural market expressed their support for the Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi. In particular, the All-Ukrainian Agrarian Council and the Association of Farmers and Private Landowners of Sumy Region.

In an exclusive commentary to UNN, Alex Lissitsa, CEO of the Industrial Milk Company (IMC), praised Solsky's performance as Minister of Agrarian Policy and said there was no doubt about his professionalism.

"In 2 years, he really managed to consolidate the agrarian society, there was very direct and frank communication with all relevant associations, which was very important during martial law - to receive first-hand information about the situation in ports, the situation with exports, the situation at the borders, and the situation with agricultural logistics. The Minister held meetings in person, either online or offline, twice a week, where he gave clear and understandable information so that the agricultural community understood where we were. This is a huge plus," he emphasized.

Lissitsa also noted that it was during Solsky's tenure that work on European integration legislation and the European integration process itself began in the form of screening. 

"That is, the Ministry of Agrarian Policy is probably the only one that has conducted a full screening of the documents that we need to make  and adapt to European legislation in the near future in order to fulfill the conditions for accession," says the IMC CEO.

He also noted the very active negotiations that Mykola Solsky has been conducting for the past year and a half to prevent the blocking of Ukrainian exports by our southern neighbors, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia.

"That's why I would give Solsky a solid 5 out of 5 points for the last 2 years, I personally have no doubts about his professionalism... I don't really know the case itself. It's hard for me to assess what happened in 17 or 18, because to be honest, I don't know. The only thing that is clear to me is that the very essence of the Academy of Agrarian Sciences and state land has always been a huge problem," Lissitsa emphasized.

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.