Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, on Oct. 3 passed a judicial reform bill that would make it almost impossible to investigate many criminal cases, including corruption cases against top officials, critics of the legislation say.
The reform legislation also enables the functioning of the controversial new Supreme Court, 25 members of which have been deemed corrupt or dishonest by the Public Integrity Council, a judicial reform watchdog.
Under the bill, prosecutors would have to file notices of suspicion for suspects in criminal cases within six months for grave crimes, and within three months for crimes of medium severity. Otherwise, such cases would have to be closed.
Moreover, all cases must be sent to trial within two months after a notice of suspicion is filed, according to the bill.
This clause was initiated by Radical Party lawmaker Andriy Lozovy.
Sergii Gorbatuk, head of the in absentia cases department at the Prosecutor General’s Office, said that Lozovy had a conflict of interest in this case because the bill will affect him personally and will let him escape criminal responsibility. Lozovy is suspected by the Prosecutor General’s Office of evading taxes worth Hr 1.83 million.
Gorbatuk also said that all ongoing EuroMaidan investigations would have to be closed because of the bill.
“It is impossible to investigate complicated crimes, especially corruption and economic crimes, within such terms,” Vitaly Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center’s executive board, said on Facebook. “This kills anti-corruption reform and any legal responsibility for any serious crimes.”
Shabunin said the clause would enable the authorities to close corruption cases against State Fiscal Service Chief Roman Nasirov, ex-People’s Front lawmaker Mykola Martynenko, and Central Election Commission Chairman Mykhailo Okhendovsky.
Reformist lawmaker Mustafa Nayyem said on Facebook that the clause would also force prosecutors to close some cases against ex-President Viktor Yanukovych and his cronies.
Nayyem said the clause was likely being used as a way to persuade the Opposition Bloc, an offshoot of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, to support the judicial reform bill as a whole, since it would allow many lawmakers from this faction to avoid being prosecuted for their actions under Yanukovych.
Another reformist lawmaker, Sergii Leshchenko, claimed that Lozovy’s Radical Party is financed by Ukraine’s richest man Rinat Akhmetov, a sponsor of the Opposition Bloc.
Lozovy dismissed the accusations, saying that his clause will prevent delays of legal proceedings and protect people from groundless charges. “I’m proud of my amendment,” he said.
The judicial reform bill would also allow judges to ban the filming of court hearings even in open trials, and to prevent visitors from attending them if there are not enough seats. Critics say this will deal a major blow to the judiciary’s transparency.
The judicial reform bill was supported by President Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc, the People’s Front, and three offshoots of the Party of Regions – the Opposition Bloc, Vidrodzhennya (Revival) and Volya Narodu (People’s Will).
Verkhovna Rada Speaker Andriy Parubiy ignored opposition lawmakers’ complaints that the vote was falsified because several lawmakers illegally voted for their colleagues.
Meanwhile, the Public Integrity Council on Oct. 3 urged Poroshenko not to sign any of the new Supreme Court’s 111 judges’ credentials until courts issue rulings on alleged violations made during the Supreme Court competition and until the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission publish explanations on why they rejected the Public Integrity Council’s vetoes on candidates deemed corrupt or dishonest.
The violations of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission include setting a third minimum score for candidates during the first stage of the competition, failing to set a minimum score for psychological and social testing, refusing to publish candidates’ practical works and scores given for each criterion of integrity and professional ethics and failing to explain any motives for its rejection of the Public Integrity Council’s vetoes, the civic watchdog said. The High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission have denied the accusations.
“Under Article 127 of Ukraine’s Constitution, only candidates who meet ethical standards can be appointed as judges,” the Public Integrity Council said in a statement. “We believe that the High Council of Justice ignored its constitutional duty and lost the chance of restoring citizens’ trust in the judiciary.”
The council also said that it had “grounds to assume that the competition was rigged to appoint candidates handpicked beforehand, and the Public Integrity Council was used to legitimize this process.”
The Public Integrity Council also asked Poroshenko to initiate an international audit of the Supreme Court competition and a restructuring of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission, which have failed to restore trust in the judiciary.
Newly-appointed Supreme Court judges Vyacheslav Nastavny and Serhiy Slynko participated in the political persecution of Yuriy Lutsenko, now prosecutor general, and the Pavlychenko family under ex-President Viktor Yanukovych. Both cases have been recognized as political by Ukrainian and European authorities.
Another new Supreme Court judge, Bohdan Lvov, is being investigated for illegal interference in the automatic distribution of cases by ex-High Commercial Court Chief Viktor Tatkov and his former deputy Artur Yemelyanov, who have been officially charged in a criminal case. He is also under investigation over alleged bribery in a criminal case against High Council of Justice member Pavlo Grechkivsky, who has been charged with fraud.
Lvov has also been investigated for making an unlawful ruling, and the Supreme Court has ruled that one of Lvov’s rulings violated human rights and involved interference in the automatic distribution of court cases.
