The European Union has issued a strong warning following Ukraine’s legislative move that could significantly alter the structure and independence of its leading anti-corruption institutions. The recent adoption of draft law No. 12414 by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, has triggered a wave of concern across European political circles and among Kyiv’s international allies.
The legislation, if signed into law, would place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the administrative authority of the Prosecutor General, effectively removing their operational independence. This development is seen not just as a technical legislative change but as a direct blow to the reform commitments Ukraine made as part of its European Union accession process.
Legislative Changes Threaten Institutional Independence
At the heart of the international outcry is the sweeping authority the bill confers upon the Prosecutor General over both NABU and SAPO. Under the new legislation, the Prosecutor General would be granted the power to:
- Transfer cases from NABU to other bodies
- Issue binding instructions to NABU detectives
- Override SAPO’s independent procedural decisions
The most controversial clause removes SAPO’s procedural independence — a foundational element meant to protect it from political influence. Under the new structure, SAPO would be reduced to a mere subordinate agency within the broader prosecutorial framework.
Transparency International Ukraine, a key watchdog in the region, issued a stern rebuke of the changes.
“These amendments destroy the system of checks and balances,”
said the organization in a public statement, adding that SAPO would become
“a decorative body with no powers and no real influence on investigations.”
Such an overhaul directly contradicts the efforts that Ukraine, with substantial assistance from the EU and Western allies, had undertaken to create an anti-corruption system shielded from political manipulation.
A Serious Setback for Ukraine’s Reform Trajectory
These legal developments come at a critical moment in Ukraine’s geopolitical path. As it continues to face Russian aggression and internal economic challenges, the country’s progress on anti-corruption is viewed as a bellwether for its broader commitment to democratic governance and rule of law.
The European Commission wasted no time in expressing its disapproval. A spokesperson from the Commission emphasized the serious nature of the situation, stating that the EU is
“concerned about the situation with NABU and SAPO,”
and underscoring their
“crucial” role in fighting corruption and maintaining public trust.”
While the spokesperson clarified that discussions around suspending financial aid to Ukraine were
“not a discussion at this stage,”
they emphasized that the EU possesses safeguards and control mechanisms to monitor how assistance is used.
G7 and EU Officials Highlight Implications for EU Membership
The international response extended beyond Brussels. The G7 ambassadors in Kyiv jointly issued statements pointing to the risks associated with the legislative shift. Their message: weakening anti-corruption institutions erodes both domestic and international confidence in Ukraine’s reform agenda.
Marta Kos, EU Enlargement Commissioner, echoed these sentiments in no uncertain terms.
“This vote is a serious step back,”
she said, adding,
“Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations.”
Kos’ remarks signal not just disappointment but also a possible recalibration of the EU’s engagement strategy with Kyiv. The reforms to NABU and SAPO are more than procedural; they strike at the core of what Brussels views as the prerequisites for membership and future integration.
Reform Backslide Rooted in Deeper Structural Challenges
The legislative maneuvers in Kyiv are part of a broader pattern often observed in post-Soviet states where prosecutorial services remain tightly controlled and subject to political influence. Across the region, the independence of prosecutorial offices — particularly anti-corruption units — has been a perennial issue, often reflecting the tug-of-war between reformers and entrenched elites.
In Ukraine’s case, these concerns are heightened by its recent progress in building institutions that were finally starting to deliver results. The NABU and SAPO, despite facing political pressure and operational challenges, have been involved in high-profile investigations against oligarchs and top-level officials.
By returning control of these institutions to the Prosecutor General, the risk of selective prosecution, political interference, and institutional inertia becomes significantly higher. Analysts warn that this could erase a decade of painstakingly built safeguards and credibility.
Public Backlash Brewing at Home
While international institutions have been vocal, Ukraine’s civil society is equally galvanized. Activists and civic groups are organizing demonstrations across Kyiv, viewing the legislation as a betrayal of the 2014 Maidan revolution’s core promise — to build a clean, fair, and democratic state.
Posters calling for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto the law have appeared throughout the capital. Legal experts, journalists, and opposition MPs are warning that signing the bill into law could represent a turning point in Ukraine’s post-revolution reform narrative — and not in a favorable direction.
For the president, the situation presents a complicated political calculus. Zelenskyy must balance internal political alliances with the urgent need to maintain international support. How he responds — whether with a veto, further clarification, or silence — will be closely scrutinized by both domestic stakeholders and international observers.
Why the Independence of NABU and SAPO Matters
The core premise behind creating independent bodies like NABU and SAPO was to ensure that anti-corruption efforts could be pursued without political interference — something that had derailed earlier institutions. NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors were given legal and procedural autonomy precisely to shield them from the kind of top-down directives that the current legislation reintroduces.
As the European Commission pointed out, the independence of these bodies is central to Ukraine’s candidacy for EU membership. “Public trust” in institutions is not just a moral necessity but a political one, particularly when international financial aid is involved. Maintaining that trust requires visible, accountable, and politically insulated enforcement agencies.
What’s at Stake for Ukraine’s European Future
The timing of this legislation could not be more consequential. Just as Ukraine is negotiating key aspects of its EU accession, such moves threaten to derail its trajectory. Political analysts in Brussels warn that unless Kyiv quickly addresses the situation, it risks a cooling of diplomatic momentum and potential reevaluation of financial packages.
“Rule of Law is a prerequisite for joining the EU. Weakening NABU and SAPO undermines Ukraine’s reform credibility and EU aspirations,”
Marta Kos emphasized, making clear the stakes involved.
The EU has shown considerable patience and flexibility with Ukraine, particularly in light of the ongoing war. However, structural backsliding on core democratic principles could force Brussels to draw firmer lines, especially if similar moves continue.
Awaiting Zelenskyy’s Decision: A Critical Juncture
All eyes are now on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose decision to sign or veto the bill will determine whether Ukraine retains the trust of its Western partners or risks isolation. While the president has previously positioned himself as a champion of anti-corruption and EU integration, this moment may prove the true test of that commitment.
The domestic mood is tense, and the international community is watching with increasing unease. Brussels has made its expectations clear, and so have civil society actors in Kyiv. With both internal and external pressure mounting, the coming days could define the trajectory of Ukraine’s reform path for years to come.
The question now is whether Zelenskyy will seize the moment to reaffirm Ukraine’s commitment to democratic governance — or allow a key pillar of reform to be dismantled under his watch.
