Notices of suspicion, flight and chaos at Prosecutor General’s Office: how could Kravchenko saga end?
One of Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko’s best-known statements, "I will come for every one of them," took on new meaning on Monday morning. The still-serving head of the Prosecutor General’s Office released a sensational video address. In it, he said he had signed notices of suspicion against NABU Director Semen Kryvonos and a person close to SAPO head Oleksandr Klymenko. Interestingly, while Ukrainians were listening to Kravchenko’s revelations, he was already abroad. He had left the country during the night. He later said he was on an official business trip.
In response, NABU said that Kryvonos had not been served with a notice of suspicion and called Kravchenko’s statement a continuation of the attack on the independence of the anti-corruption agencies. The Prosecutor General did not remain silent, writing that he had sent the notice of suspicion by post.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also weighed in, calling on the Verkhovna Rada to immediately approve Kravchenko’s dismissal. The relevant motion was promptly submitted to parliament. The Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement was already holding a meeting, but on other matters, as MPs had received the agenda the day before. However, after lunch, the committee did consider the President’s motion, meaning that parliament could approve Kravchenko’s dismissal as early as tomorrow.
"IT MATTERS WHO WILL SERVE AS ACTING PROSECUTOR GENERAL UNTIL A LEGITIMATE HEAD IS APPOINTED"
The committee unanimously supported the decision to dismiss Kravchenko as Prosecutor General, says Maksym Buzhanskyi, an MP from the Servant of the People parliamentary faction and a member of the committee:
- Kravchenko personally submitted a letter of resignation, and there is a corresponding motion from the President. When these two circumstances coincide, there can be no objections. The Prosecutor General is usually expected to attend such meetings. When we considered the resignations of Lutsenko, Venediktova, Riaboshapka and Kostin, they were present. But today, it was impossible even to summon Kravchenko. Mamka, Pavliuk, Osadchuk and I raised the question of who is currently serving as acting Prosecutor General. We demanded that the committee chair ascertain this and asked him to call a recess in the committee meeting for that purpose. Someone has to represent the Prosecutor General’s Office. However, the decision was made to proceed immediately to a vote. Under the law, if the Prosecutor General resigns, for example, the first deputy assumes their duties. There is currently no first deputy either. Therefore, it seems to me that the committee acted somewhat hastily in this situation. After all, it is unacceptable to leave the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine without leadership and thereby create legal chaos.
Who could become the next head of the Prosecutor General’s Office? The appointment of a Prosecutor General is always a political matter. This is a figure whom the authorities trust to defend the interests of the state. I do not know which candidates will be put forward. But we have never had a situation in which a proposed candidate failed to secure enough votes. Am I prepared to vote in favour if the President submits a motion to appoint Ionushas? It would be inappropriate for me to say that I would not support the chair of my own committee. However, I would stress that this is an enormous responsibility during a war, amid a difficult political situation and pressure from all sides.
I would not make any predictions today about who will be nominated. I am certain that everyone who claims to have inside information on this matter is mistaken. The President will decide this issue alone. We will learn of his decision when the relevant appointment motion is submitted. If it arrives this week, parliament will, of course, be able to consider it. But I would once again draw attention to this point: it matters who will serve as acting Prosecutor General until a legitimate head of the prosecution service is appointed. There is frequent talk that, in the absence of leadership, some cases may be "buried" or, conversely, revived. That does happen in our country. But I would not want that to happen.
I categorically oppose both Anastasiia Radina’s initiative to urgently consider the bill on a competitive procedure for selecting candidates for Prosecutor General and the proposal itself. In our country, the President is elected directly by voters. It is they who, under the Constitution, give the President a direct mandate to submit the candidate he deems appropriate for consideration by the Verkhovna Rada. This presidential power must not be restricted by determining that unknown members of a selection commission deserve greater trust than the President. This President will not remain in office forever. No government remains in power forever. But Ukraine’s democratic model must be preserved in the future. I do not wish to offend anyone, but I keep saying that Ms Radina is pursuing the seizure of power. We, meanwhile, are addressing the lawful functioning of law enforcement agencies under the Constitution of Ukraine.
There is another important point. Not everyone knows this, but SAPO’s role is far greater than NABU’s because the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office exercises procedural oversight of investigations. Therefore, the fact that they always act together is a bad thing. It seems to me that this prevents them from operating in accordance with the law. One should, after all, oversee the other. The Prosecutor General’s Office does not always act in tandem with the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) or the State Bureau of Investigation. That would be absurd. Yet here, for some reason, everyone considers it normal. That is the first point.
Second, we must consider all these matters without tying them to particular names. It does not matter who heads NABU, SAPO or the Prosecutor General’s Office. If the Prosecutor General said in his morning address that he had been pressured and that, because of this pressure, he had not signed the notices of suspicion, then liability arises under Article 396 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which concerns the concealment of a crime. In other words, he knew that a crime had been committed but concealed it. He abused his authority by failing to sign those notices of suspicion. If he sees grounds for doing so, signing them is not his right but his duty. What matters is whether there was interference, whether the Prosecutor General was pressured, and whether anyone compelled him to sign or not to sign a notice of suspicion. If we want everything to be done in accordance with the law, this issue must be clarified. And it must be done without political pressure or attempts to defeat one another. Even if all the notices of suspicion are simply "buried" now, I think that would be a disservice. The notices of suspicion have been signed. An investigation must therefore be conducted and reach a conclusion. If there are no grounds, the cases must be closed in accordance with the law. If there are grounds, they must be considered. Otherwise, how is one agency any better than another?
By the way, Zhelezniak wrote that the case against Kryvonos dates back to 2014. Yet he is the one who constantly proposes abolishing time limits for pre-trial investigations. Well, there you have it. That is your own proposal. Do you like it now? He also calls for statutes of limitations to be abolished once a case reaches court. In other words, he wants to introduce investigations that last for life, until a person physically dies. Will we ever see a result under such an approach? No, never, because there are no time limits. Therefore, this entire story is another opportunity to reconsider the proposed legislative amendments and see how they would work in this particular case.
"KRAVCHENKO HAS PLUNGED THE PROSECUTION SERVICE INTO COMPLETE CHAOS. THIS IS SIMPLY APPALLING AND TOTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY"
Andrii Osadchuk, an MP from the Holos parliamentary faction and first deputy chair of the committee, confirms that he also insisted that representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General attend today’s meeting:
- The President’s motion arrived while the committee meeting was under way. Accordingly, after the scheduled agenda items had been considered, committee chair Serhii Ionushas and the President’s representative in the Verkhovna Rada, Halyna Mykhailiuk, proposed adding consideration of the motion seeking approval for Kravchenko’s dismissal. A discussion then followed. I was indeed among those who said that this was probably not entirely appropriate because representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General needed to be present. After all, we are talking about an institution, rather than simply certain individuals. It would have been appropriate to invite them. But because the matter was introduced orally as an additional agenda item, no one had been invited. It was clear that both the committee chair and the President’s representative had received explicit instructions to consider the entire matter as quickly as possible in order to obtain a formal decision, namely the committee’s approval. Accordingly, the committee voted to add it to the agenda. It was considered very quickly, with virtually no discussion, and immediately put to a vote. There was no way not to vote for it. So I also voted in favour. However, from a procedural standpoint, I believe that this was, of course, all done in great haste.
I can also confirm that during the meeting, including in remarks by the committee chair, it was stated that as of 2:00 p.m., when we were in session, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement did not know who was serving as acting Prosecutor General in the country at that time. There is a chart assigning responsibilities, approved by an internal order of the Office of the Prosecutor General. It specifies who substitutes for whom. But a chart and certain internal procedures are one thing; a legal fact is another. The committee chair promised to send an urgent inquiry to the Prosecutor General’s Office asking who was actually in charge of the prosecution service at that moment. My colleagues and I insisted that we convene another committee meeting, tomorrow, for example, with a single item on the agenda: discussing the situation at the Office of the Prosecutor General to understand what was happening there at all. Because it appears that Mr Kravchenko has plunged the prosecution service into complete chaos. This is simply appalling and total irresponsibility!
Kravchenko’s address today and the notices of suspicion he signed demonstrate why young, inexperienced, and narcissistic people must not be appointed to such positions.
He is simply too narcissistic, too fond of himself, and still far too inexperienced to play games like these. I have little interest in his fate, but the reputational damage inflicted on the Ukrainian state is simply enormous. Let us recall how, a week ago at lunchtime, he said that he would remain in office, received a dressing-down, and announced that evening that he had made a political decision. We understand that this was not the case. He merely confirmed that he is a pawn on this political "chessboard." Yet he actively used those words. I think Kravchenko will now speak abroad about political persecution or something similar. I would very much like to be wrong, but I fear that we will have another "high-ranking" political refugee. And that is appalling! I have a feeling that he will not return. Once again, I very much want to be wrong, but that is how it feels at present.
Of course, I will vote for Kravchenko’s dismissal. This man has to go.
I never supported him, either at the outset or during his tenure. But it was difficult to imagine such an appalling end to his reputation and professional career.
Many other colleagues and professional civil society activists have written that the notices of suspicion were allegedly coordinated with the Office of the President. I do not believe that in the slightest. This was his personal decision. It was a purely unilateral move bordering on professional hysteria. Once again, this shows how professionally unfit he is for the position to which the President appointed him, and Parliament approved him. Zelenskyy still bears responsibility for all of this because, under the Constitution, he alone appoints and dismisses the Prosecutor General. As time goes on, every resignation of a Prosecutor General becomes a problem for the country as a whole, rather than just for the prosecution service.
I see no grounds for voting for any candidates selected without a competitive process who would follow the same trajectory as the previous four Prosecutors General. Moreover, if we follow the same model as before, then regardless of the next Prosecutor General’s surname, their career will end in more or less the same way as those of their predecessors. I would remind you that Kostin also left office amid a scandal involving "disabled prosecutors." If the Office of the President refuses to accept that the rules of the game must be changed, we will simply go around the same circle once again.
"KRAVCHENKO MAY NOT RETURN FROM ABROAD"
The question of who is currently in charge of the Office of the Prosecutor General was raised quite forcefully at today’s meeting, agrees Oleksandr Danutsa, an MP from the Servant of the People parliamentary faction and a member of the committee:
- After all, there is no Prosecutor General, nor is there a first deputy. It is not yet known who will be entrusted with these duties. But today, the committee chair is expected to send a letter to the Office of the Prosecutor General asking it to clarify who is serving as acting Prosecutor General. The committee may hold a meeting tomorrow morning, to which the acting Prosecutor General would be invited.
What does Kravchenko’s signing of the notices of suspicion mean? It is difficult to say, given how he did it: he signed the notices, recorded a video, and left the country. There are no specifics about what motivated him. Some write that it was revenge, while others are looking for different motives. I do not know for certain. But I predict that, for one reason or another, he may not return from abroad.
Will the current situation affect assistance from our partners? I do not think so. The notices of suspicion were announced but not served. Neither the NABU director nor the person said to be linked to SAPO currently has the formal status of a suspect. As far as I know, meetings on this situation are being held today with senior representatives of our partners. This is an unpleasant episode. It really should not have happened. But I would not describe it as critical or a turning point in relations with our partners.
"KRAVCHENKO’S CAUSE — ATTACKS ON NABU AND SAPO — WILL LIVE ON IF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VERKHOVNA RADA APPOINT ANOTHER PUPPET PROSECUTOR GENERAL"
The notices of suspicion issued by Kravchenko against Kryvonos and a person close to the head of SAPO constitute an attempt to destroy the anti-corruption agencies, according to Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center:
- This was not his own unilateral initiative; it would be naive to think so. After all, the President and parliament appointed Kravchenko as Prosecutor General precisely so that he would neutralise the threat posed by the independent anti-corruption agencies to the country’s top leadership and their associates who steal. Kravchenko himself has now fled abroad, and that is the greatest disgrace. Fleeing abroad in disgrace and shame while issuing such a grandiose statement in which he says that no one can be above the law is shameful. But this does not prevent his dismissal at all. The President has submitted the relevant motion. Parliament must approve the dismissal by a majority vote.
I am more than certain that he will be dismissed. But behind this latest episode of the Servant of the People reality show lies the main issue from which they are trying to distract us: how the next Prosecutor General will be appointed. Kravchenko will no longer be a player (it is only a matter of time before he is removed). But his cause, namely the attack on NABU and SAPO, will live on if the President and parliament once again appoint a puppet Prosecutor General who is prepared to act in accordance with the orders and directives of the country’s highest political leadership, regardless of whether they are lawful. If that happens, we will simply get a new Kravchenko with a different surname.
Therefore, the key indicator for us will be how both the President and parliament act regarding the law on the competitive selection of the Prosecutor General. A law must be adopted establishing a completely different, politically neutral procedure under which the President holds a competition before nominating a candidate for Prosecutor General. A selection commission should be created following a model similar to those used to select the NABU director and the head of SAPO, with most of its members nominated by our international partners and holding the decisive vote. This would give us a chance to have a truly independent and professional Prosecutor General who would neither shield the mafia nor serve someone’s political ambitions, but would genuinely uphold justice and defend the interests of the Ukrainian people.
Olha Moskaliuk, "Censor.NET"
