Undermining Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bodies: A New Bill and Its Fallout
- Michał Krawczyński
- Jul 29
- 3 min read
Updated: Aug 1
Author: Michał Krawczyński
Ukraine Passes Controversial Bill Affecting Anti-Corruption Agencies
In July 2025, Ukraine passed a shocking new law that moves its key anti‑corruption bodies—the National Anti‑Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)—under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, who is appointed by the president. Critics say this law weakens institutional independence and undermines anti‑corruption efforts. Within hours of parliamentary approval, President Zelensky signed it into law. This swift move led to the first major protests in Ukraine since the full-scale invasion, as many perceive it as a threat to the rule of law.
How the Bill Changes the System
First of all, the new law gives the Prosecutor General broad power to control NABU and SAPO activities. It allows him to reassign or halt NABU cases, even in pretrial stages, if he decides NABU is ineffective or there are “objective circumstances” due to martial law. Secondly, SAPO prosecutors can now be given orders by the Prosecutor General directly. Meanwhile, the agency head loses the authority to charge high‑ranking officials. This overturns prior safeguards intended to prevent political interference.
Why Critics Are Alarmed
Critics—including Human Rights Watch and Ukrainian civil society groups—warn that this legislation undercuts Ukraine’s reform gains and erodes public trust in institutions. Some call it a “knife in the back” for anti‑corruption reform. Many see the move as politically motivated, especially since high-profile cases involving allies of President Zelensky were stalled or reassigned just before the bill passed. Some suspect the law aims to protect insiders from scrutiny.
Public Outcry and International Backlash
Across Ukraine, thousands took to the streets in cities like Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa and Kharkiv. They protested without warning—even under wartime martial law—sending a rare, strong signal of civic outrage. Meanwhile, international partners expressed serious concerns. The European Union, including Commissioner Marta Kos and EU President Ursula von der Leyen, warned the move could jeopardize Ukraine’s EU membership prospects. Others stressed that anti‑corruption institutions are vital for reform and stability. The OECD, Transparency International, and others raised alarms that the reform may damage Ukraine’s credibility in international aid and investment circles.
A Reversal in Motion?
Facing intense pressure, President Zelensky proposed a new bill just days later. This draft aims to restore NABU and SAPO’s independence and limit political control over their work. It also promises new safeguards against alleged Russian infiltration, including mandatory polygraph tests for some officials. This move was welcomed by EU leaders and civil society. Yet it remains unclear whether Ukraine’s parliament will pass the bill quickly enough to reverse the damage already done.
Why This Matters Now
Ukraine’s ability to fight corruption independently has been a key condition of its EU accession path, as well as access to Western financial aid during the war. Weakening these safeguards risks reversing reform progress made after the Euromaidan revolution in 2014. Also, at a time when Ukraine needs international trust and solid institutions, the new law can be interpreted as consolidating power—raising concerns about growing authoritarianism and internal divisions.
Looking Ahead
At this point, much depends on how the Ukrainian government responds. If the new draft law does restore agency independence and guard against political interference, it could rebuild some trust. But the speed and substance of reforms will be critical. Moreover, ongoing civilian protests and international pressure may continue. People expect transparency, fairness, and real checks and balances—even in wartime.
Conclusion
In short, Ukraine’s new anti‑corruption reform has stirred serious concern. What began as a law targeting corruption now threatens to undo years of reform progress. While a reversal is now being proposed, Ukrainians and their international partners remain vigilant. Ultimately, restoring independent anti‑corruption bodies is not a luxury—it is a necessity for Ukraine’s integrity, democracy, and future. The question now is whether the authorities will choose reform or retreat.
Comments