“Criminal Procedure Code Reform” Under the NABU and SAPO: How the Rada Is Responding to Legislative Proposals by Klymenko and Kryvonos
17 March 15:01
The intentions of the NABU and the SAPO to substantially revise the provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation became known from a letter sent by NABU Director Semen Kryvonos and SAPO Head Oleksandr Klymenko to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In the document, the anti-corruption agencies outlined their vision for amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and a number of other legislative acts governing the activities of law enforcement agencies and the courts. This was reported by [Komersant], citing the text of the letter, which has been made publicly available.
Among the proposed initiatives are the creation of a dedicated expert institution under NABU, amendments to the Criminal Code regarding the suspension of the statute of limitations (prosecution) from the moment the indictment is submitted to the court, as well as a review of the rules for publishing court decisions, specifically restricting access to rulings in NABU cases.
At the same time, the bulk of the proposals concerns amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Specifically, the heads of NABU and the SAPO propose changing the approach to monitoring the duration of pre-trial investigations: the relevant powers are planned to be transferred to the prosecutor, who will be able to independently extend the time limits, specifically up to 12 months, without involving an investigating judge.
There is also a proposal to remove the provision allowing criminal proceedings to be closed due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines, as well as to revise the procedure for holding members of parliament accountable— granting the head of the SAPO the right to independently enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations and approve investigative actions.
A separate set of amendments concerns procedural matters. It is proposed to abolish the institution of lay witnesses, replacing them with technical recording devices; to classify the monitoring of bank accounts as public investigative actions; and to simplify the procedure for extending procedural obligations on suspects—making them effective until the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation.
Additionally, the initiatives provide for expanding the powers of the SAPO in international cooperation, particularly regarding the creation of joint investigative teams and the submission of extradition requests.
Other proposals include abolishing the possibility of collegial review of cases for top officials, limiting the scope of pretrial hearings, introducing time limits for the examination of evidence in court, and expanding the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). Specifically, it is proposed to include within the Bureau’s jurisdiction the head of the Office of the President, his deputies, the heads of regional and military-civilian administrations, as well as the leadership of the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR).
These initiatives have sparked a mixed reaction in parliament, with lawmakers largely expressing skepticism about their feasibility.
What other reforms do you think are missing? — lawmakers’ reactions
MP Volodymyr Vatrus noted that the NABU and the SAPO already have sufficient powers to effectively combat corruption.
“I would like to see more results from them—in the form of convictions. Regarding changes to the rules of pre-trial investigation, restrictions on access to court decisions, and the repeal of the so-called ‘Lozovoy amendments’—it is clear that the final assessment must be made by the relevant committees. At the same time, it is unlikely that these initiatives will receive broad support in parliament,” he noted.
His opinion is echoed by another MP and member of the Law Enforcement Committee, Serhiy Vlasenko. The lawmaker emphasizes that no other law enforcement agency in the world has the exclusive operational conditions enjoyed by NABU and SAPO . According to him, the last time institutions were granted such powers was in Poland; however, the Poles later shut down their NABU, noting that it had become a political tool rather than an anti-corruption one.
“You know what gets in the way of a bad dancer? They constantly insist on additional exclusive tools, even though they’re already in a privileged position. They want to secure an even more exclusive position for themselves. But there’s no competition left in the process. No one cares about anything the defense says anymore. Because NABU does whatever it wants. The SAPO, turning a blind eye, signs off on it. And the High Anti-Corruption Court, turning a blind eye to all of this, claims that this is justice.
And then we get rulings from truly independent European courts stating that the High Anti-Corruption Court and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office cannot guarantee a person’s fundamental right to a defense. This is a disgrace for the state. They simply need to focus on law enforcement, not politics,” the MP said indignantly.
He added that he personally, as a professional lawyer, would not support the relevant legislative changes.
