NABU and SAP leaders have urged comprehensive legal and institutional reforms – including autonomous wiretapping, stronger procedural autonomy and reinforced parliamentary safeguards – to protect Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigations amid ongoing political pressures and debates over their independence. Their demands, rooted in earlier departmental initiatives and framed through the lens of European integration, seek to strengthen institutional capacity while raising questions about oversight, costs and risks highlighted by critical domestic media analysis.
NABU and SAP leaders press for reforms to shield Ukraine’s anti-corruption drive
In a detailed set of public and institutional statements, leaders of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP/SAPO) have called for far‑reaching reforms to guarantee their operational independence, expand investigatory powers and solidify Ukraine’s anti‑corruption architecture in line with European Union expectations. Their agenda – centred on autonomous wiretapping, procedural changes in criminal investigations, stronger parliamentary safeguards and enhanced institutional capacity – is closely connected to earlier departmental proposals and subsequent national debates on whether these bodies should enjoy wider powers with reduced external control.
Background of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions
As explained by analysts from the Atlantic Council, NABU was created after the Euromaidan protests to investigate high‑level corruption, while the SAPO supervises NABU investigations and represents the state prosecution in court in cases involving top officials and serious bribery. In that analysis, the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service noted that “serious disagreements between the management of NABU and SAPO have been in place for a long time,” describing an inter‑agency conflict marked by mutual accusations of case mishandling, alleged obstruction and questions over investigative competence.
Human Rights Watch has stressed that both bodies play a pivotal role in Ukraine’s efforts to align with EU standards, calling them “key bodies established to investigate high‑level corruption,” and warning that their independence is central to the rule of law. BBC News reporting on protests in 2025 likewise underlined that NABU and SAP were regarded by many Ukrainians and Western partners as watchdogs essential to curbing entrenched corruption and safeguarding wartime governance.
Controversial legislation and subsequent reversal
Law curbing independence and protests
As reported by NPR and BBC News, the Verkhovna Rada on 22 July 2025 adopted legislation that effectively placed NABU and SAP under the authority of the Prosecutor General, expanding his ability to access all NABU cases, reassign prosecutors and issue binding instructions to investigators. NPR’s coverage noted that the law “grants the general prosecutor increased authority over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office,” triggering the first major street protests since Russia’s full‑scale invasion.
Human Rights Watch stated that the amendments
“severely limit the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) … by significantly expanding the authority of the prosecutor general over their investigations,”
describing the move as detrimental to the rule of law. On the same theme, the Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw (OSW) wrote that the July law
“effectively dismantles the independence of NABU and SAP”
by allowing the Prosecutor General to issue binding instructions, reassign cases, and terminate investigations, making anti‑corruption agencies dependent on a politically appointed official.
BBC News journalists covering the protests highlighted concerns among Western allies, quoting critics who argued that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to sign the bill had “diminished the autonomy” of NABU and SAP and allowed the Prosecutor General, Ruslan Kravchenko, to redirect or halt sensitive corruption probes.
Zelensky’s response and new bill
Reuters correspondents later reported that President Zelensky, facing domestic protests and rare public criticism from European partners, vowed to retain the independence of anti‑corruption agencies and backed new legislation restoring their autonomy. In that Reuters explainer, the agency noted that NABU and SAPO had issued a joint statement expressing their desire for legislative measures to restore independence, after the earlier law had empowered the Prosecutor General to reassign cases away from them.
Online outlet United24 Media reported that, in a statement dated 23 July 2025, NABU and SAP
“welcomed the President’s initiative to draft a new bill that will include comprehensive safeguards for the independence of anti-corruption bodies,”
stressing their support for measures to strengthen the rule of law and institutional autonomy. United24 Media quoted the agencies as saying they were ready to
“participate in the discussion and preparation of the legislative proposal, which aims to eliminate legal risks, align with the principles of the rule of law, and enhance the capacity to ensure justice in Ukraine.”
NPR later noted that Ukraine’s parliament approved a law aimed at reinstating the autonomy of anti‑corruption watchdogs, with the new framework designed to “restore independence to anti-corruption agencies” and respond to the public backlash against earlier efforts to curtail their powers. Kyiv24, reporting on the European Commission’s reaction, wrote that EU institutions welcomed the law strengthening NABU and SAP’s powers and independence as a positive step for Ukraine’s anti‑corruption efforts and European integration path.
Departmental initiatives and the ‘Kachka–Kos plan’
Proposals sent to government
The Judicial and Legal Newspaper (sud.ua) has examined how departmental requests from NABU and SAP were translated into a broader European‑labelled reform roadmap, known as the ‘Kachka–Kos plan’. According to sud.ua’s analysis, NABU and SAP leadership sent proposals to the government on 20 November 2025, framing them as necessary to “eliminate procedural obstacles” and increase institutional capacity for corruption investigations.
Sud.ua reported that these internal proposals concerned four main areas: creation of a dedicated expert institution for NABU cases, procedural autonomy for prosecutors including extended pre‑trial investigation terms, changes to rules on case closure to prevent term‑based dismissals after suspicion, and expansion of SAP powers to initiate investigations against members of parliament and cooperate internationally without Prosecutor General mediation. The article argued that these departmental initiatives were later presented in political debate as non‑negotiable “European demands”, raising questions about how far institutional requests were being blended into commitments under EU accession processes.
Critical coverage of risks and costs
In March 2026, the Ukrainian news agency UNN published a critical analysis asserting that NABU and SAP “want more powers and less control, despite obvious risks and increased costs.” UNN reported that NABU Director Semen Kryvonos and SAPO Head Oleksandr Klymenko described their proposals to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko as efforts to “increase institutional capacity” and remove procedural barriers, calling for an independent expert institution and safeguards against information leaks.
However, UNN’s reporting warned that such reforms risked weakening external oversight and could raise expenditure, suggesting that the expansion of staff and creation of new bodies would have budgetary implications and potentially concentrate significant power in specialised institutions with reduced checks. The piece framed the debate as a tension between efficiency in anti‑corruption work and the need for balanced institutional control mechanisms.
NABU and SAP leaders’ reform agenda
Calls for autonomous wiretapping and institutional capacity
Although the full text of the Mezha.net / Bukvy article titled “NABU and SAP Leaders Urge Reforms to Strengthen Anti-Corruption Investigations” could not be accessed directly, summary information indicates that the story focused on calls from NABU and SAP leadership for autonomous wiretapping powers, procedural changes in criminal investigations, and stronger institutional capacity to handle complex corruption cases.
On its official website, NABU itself has outlined similar priorities in communications about meetings with international partners. In a July 2025 note on talks with U.S. Special Representative Penny Pritzker, NABU stated that Semen Kryvonos and Oleksandr Klymenko discussed “expanding the staff of the Bureau by 300 employees, in particular, to strengthen NABU’s presence in the regions, establishing an autonomous forensic institution, and implementing NABU’s right to independent wiretapping.” The same NABU statement added that the leadership emphasised
“the need to repeal the so-called ‘Lozovyi amendments’, improve the extradition mechanism, and enhance the institutional capacity of NABU and SAPO as a whole.”
Human rights organisation ZMINA, reporting on EU commitments, noted that both NABU and SAPO considered recent European‑linked measures as steps that “strengthen their institutional capacity” but acknowledged that “certain gaps still remain” in fully guaranteeing independence. ZMINA quoted SAPO Head Oleksandr Klymenko as saying that the roadmap to reinforce autonomy included
“the right to submit international extradition requests and establish international investigative teams without prior approval from the Office of the Prosecutor General.”
Parliamentary and procedural safeguards
According to the description of the Mezha.net article and related sources, NABU and SAP leaders have also urged reforms that would lock in parliamentary safeguards for anti‑corruption investigations, ensuring that core procedural guarantees cannot easily be rolled back by future legislation. ZMINA’s coverage suggested that this includes clarifying the division of powers between the Prosecutor General’s Office and SAPO, reinforcing SAPO’s ability to independently launch cases involving MPs and maintain direct contacts with foreign law‑enforcement partners.
At the same time, analysis from OSW and Human Rights Watch has highlighted the risks of legislative changes that centralise control over anti‑corruption bodies, making the case that any reform agenda must address concerns about prosecutorial overreach and the potential politicisation of corruption probes
European and international context
EU and international partners’ stance
The European Commission’s reaction, as reported by Kyiv24, framed the restoration of NABU and SAP independence as a necessary step for continuing financial and political support, with Brussels signalling that effective anti‑corruption institutions are a central condition for Ukraine’s accession trajectory. ZMINA’s analysis emphasised that
“EU commitments boost anti-corruption agencies’ independence, but gaps remain,”
suggesting that Brussels continues to monitor how national reforms align with broader rule‑of‑law and governance standards.
On NABU’s official site, the Bureau noted that the United States
“provides comprehensive support for anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine,”
with investment levels and recovery funds tied to the effectiveness of NABU and SAPO. That same statement reported that U.S. officials were “keeping an eye on NABU and SAPO’s work,” reinforcing the idea that international partners regard the agencies’ independence and capacity as core indicators of Ukraine’s reform progress.
Domestic debates over control and accountability
Domestic media coverage, including UNN and sud.ua, shows that the push by NABU and SAP for greater powers is not universally welcomed. UNN’s critique of “more powers and less control” reflected fears that expanded autonomy could reduce transparency and checks on investigators and prosecutors. Sud.ua’s exploration of the ‘Kachka–Kos plan’ underscored worries that departmental initiatives might be framed as external “European demands,” making it harder to challenge or revise them in domestic debate.
Human Rights Watch and OSW, in turn, have cautioned that any move to place anti‑corruption agencies under stronger prosecutorial control risks undermining the very independence that international partners and Ukrainian civil society have long demanded.
Outlook for NABU and SAP reforms
In this context, the calls reported by Mezha.net / Bukvy – for autonomous wiretapping, strengthened institutional capacity, procedural changes and parliamentary guarantees – fit into a broader, ongoing negotiation over how Ukraine’s anti‑corruption system should function in wartime and on the path to EU membership. NABU and SAP leaders, backed at times by European institutions and international partners, argue that such reforms are necessary to protect complex investigations from political interference, bureaucratic bottlenecks and external pressure.
At the same time, critical domestic media and some legal analysts warn that increased autonomy must be balanced with robust oversight, transparent procedures and safeguards against abuse, noting that public trust in anti‑corruption bodies depends not only on their independence, but also on their accountability. As Ukraine continues to refine its legislation in response to protests, EU scrutiny and internal institutional demands, the debate over NABU and SAP reforms remains a central test of the country’s post‑Euromaidan anti‑corruption commitments.
