Bronetskyi criticized the initiatives by NABU and the SAPO regarding amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the creation of a new expert agency
12 June 16:30
The letter from NABU and the SAPO to the Cabinet of Ministers proposing significant revisions to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code exceeds the authority of these agencies, and some of the initiatives threaten citizens’ fundamental rights.
This was stated in a comment to "Komersant Ukrainian" by Stanislav Bronevitsky, a former prosecutor with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and a lawyer.
According to him, among the proposed changes are the repeal of the so-called “Lozovoy amendments” and the statute of limitations for bringing charges. He considers both initiatives to be flawed.
“The application of the law, or the correct interpretation of the law, is a mistake on the part of a specific prosecutor, not a flaw in the amendments. We need to work better on law enforcement activities rather than simply abolishing what we don’t like,” Bronevitsky stated.
Regarding the abolition of the statute of limitations, he acknowledged that the problem of abuse exists: some defendants deliberately drag out the proceedings to wait for the statute of limitations to expire. However, in his view, eliminating this institution creates even greater risks for ordinary citizens: cases may remain unresolved for years, while people’s accounts and property remain frozen, and in some cases, they may be held in pretrial detention.
“If you haven’t ensured a swift investigation, if you haven’t ensured proper prosecutorial oversight of the investigation—don’t shift the responsibility onto people. A person should not be held hostage to the fact that a trial will last 7, 10, or 15 years,” he emphasized.
Bronetsky also commented on the idea of creating a separate expert institution for NABU and SAPO. In his opinion, the proposed model effectively duplicates the existing system of expert institutions under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine and does not provide any real independence.
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
“If we’re talking about an independent expert review or an expert institution for the SAPO and NABU, then we’re essentially duplicating the same system that already exists. Where is the independence in that?” he asked rhetorically, adding that he considers the creation of a single independent institution for all pre-trial investigation bodies to be the only logical solution.
In conclusion, Bronevitsky criticized the very format in which these proposals are presented: instead of open public communication, the heads of anti-corruption agencies send private letters that eventually end up in the media anyway.
“The heads of the SAPO and NABU do not communicate this publicly, but instead quietly write letters that later become public knowledge and are picked up by the media. This should not be the case,” he concluded.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
