12.06.2018 Views

36_ENG

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA<br />

TOPIC OF THE DAY No.<strong>36</strong> JUNE 12, 2018 5<br />

Who outplayed whom?<br />

Lawyer: “Although the law on the Anticorruption Court<br />

has been passed, the leadership got the upper hand”<br />

By Ivan KAPSAMUN,<br />

photos by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day<br />

Let us recall how many calls<br />

there have been in the past<br />

few years to establish the<br />

Anticorruption Court.<br />

Many. But, to start with, it<br />

was, of course, necessary to pass<br />

a law to this effect. This brought<br />

about a long standoff. On one<br />

side, it is the leadership which<br />

proposed its bill and wanted to<br />

form the Anticorruption Court in<br />

accordance with its rules; on the<br />

other, it is a part of the Ukrainian<br />

public, international partners,<br />

and representatives of the<br />

democratic opposition. There is<br />

also a third side – those who<br />

oppose the establishment of this<br />

court on the grounds that this<br />

will in any case boil down to<br />

window dressing in the current<br />

conditions and it is better to<br />

reform the existing courts so they<br />

could try corruptionists. But, as<br />

the law was finally passed, let us<br />

focus on it.<br />

After a long standoff, MPs<br />

cast 315 votes for establishing<br />

the High Anticorruption Court<br />

(constitutional majority). But,<br />

before doing so, they had examined<br />

1,927 amendments to the<br />

law. This vividly illustrates the<br />

quality of the document submitted<br />

by the Presidential Administration.<br />

One of the main points MPs<br />

failed to come to terms about for<br />

a long time was powers of the<br />

Nongovernmental Board of International<br />

Experts. The question<br />

was whether or not international<br />

partners will be authorized to debar<br />

from competition the candidates<br />

that raise their doubts. Parliament<br />

Speaker Andrii PARU-<br />

BII said “a formula we found”<br />

fully complies with recommendations<br />

of the Venice Commission.<br />

The Chairman of the Parliamentary<br />

Committee on Legal Policies<br />

and Justice, Ruslan Kniazevych,<br />

explained the law’s most<br />

controversial clause on the selection<br />

of Anticorruption Court<br />

judges as follows: “The Nongovernmental<br />

Board consists of<br />

six members appointed by the High<br />

Qualification Commission of<br />

Judges (VKKS) exclusively on the<br />

basis of proposals from international<br />

organizations with which<br />

Ukraine cooperates in the field of<br />

preventing and countering corruption<br />

in accordance with international<br />

agreements. On the initiative<br />

of at least three members of<br />

the Nongovernmental Board of International<br />

Experts, the question<br />

of whether a candidate for the office<br />

of a High Anticorruption<br />

Court judge meets the necessary<br />

criteria is to be discussed at a joint<br />

meeting of the VKKS and the Nongovernmental<br />

Board of International<br />

Experts. The decision on<br />

whether this candidate meets these<br />

criteria is to be made by the majority<br />

of VKKS and Nongovernmental<br />

Board members on condition<br />

that at least a half of Nongovernmental<br />

Board members have<br />

voted for it. Should this decision<br />

not be made, the candidate shall be<br />

considered as rejected.” (unian.us)<br />

The Anticorruption Court is<br />

to be formed within 12 months<br />

from the day this law came into<br />

force.<br />

President Petro Poroshenko,<br />

the bill’s initiator, who was present<br />

in the session hall during the<br />

vote, called on MPs to muster<br />

their strength and approve this<br />

document. After the vote, the<br />

head of state repeatedly pronounced<br />

the word “victory” in his<br />

traditional manner: “It is a victory,<br />

a victory of Ukraine, a victory<br />

of the Ukrainian people, the<br />

victory of me as president of<br />

Ukraine, a victory of the Ukrainian<br />

parliament with Speaker Andrii<br />

Parubii at the head, a victory<br />

of the Ukrainian government with<br />

Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroisman<br />

at the head.”<br />

With due account of a long<br />

history and all the peripeteia, the<br />

“victory” looks at least indecent in<br />

this case. Too much pomp and anguish<br />

in the conditions, when the<br />

state needs a strong remedy and<br />

radical surgery, rather than<br />

shamans or antipyretic pills. It<br />

will be recalled that the law on the<br />

State Bureau of Investigations<br />

was passed as long as two and a<br />

half years ago, but this body has<br />

not yet been formed. The country<br />

has long needed serious reforms,<br />

all the more so that war is still going<br />

on at our territory. Instead, we<br />

can the ante endlessly upped in the<br />

inter-clannish struggle, protection<br />

of personal interests, in playing<br />

down to society, and in promises<br />

to international partners.<br />

All right, let us put aside criticism<br />

for a while and accept the<br />

logic of those who say that passing<br />

the law on the Anticorruption<br />

Court in the present conditions is<br />

at least a kind of a step. What does<br />

it mean? “It seems at first glance<br />

that compromises were reached<br />

and satisfy the Venice Commission<br />

and the IMF,” lawyer Ruslan RI-<br />

ABOSHAPKA comments to The<br />

Day. “In all probability, the leadership<br />

will be delaying the implementation<br />

of this law. On the<br />

whole, I do not think this court is<br />

a panacea and will solve the problem<br />

of corruption.”<br />

“What simply stuns me is<br />

weakness and non-professionalism<br />

of our experts and civic activists<br />

because they have shown a<br />

children’s level,” lawyer Vitalii<br />

TYTYCH told The Day. “In the<br />

past three months, I’ve been in<br />

contact with all stakeholders,<br />

Ukrainian activists, the US ambassador<br />

to Ukraine, and the head<br />

of the IMF mission, but, as a result,<br />

I failed to see that we have<br />

outplayed the current leadership.<br />

In reality, the latter, including<br />

President Poroshenko; Filatov,<br />

in charge of legal affairs in the<br />

Presidential Administration; Kniazevych<br />

in parliament; and Koziakov,<br />

chairman of the High Qualification<br />

Commission of Judges,<br />

have outplayed everybody. The<br />

vast majority of amendments<br />

were aimed at blocking the passage<br />

of the law and creating<br />

chaos. All these amendments are<br />

not the first victory of Bankova<br />

St. And when it is said that the<br />

establishment of this court is a<br />

step forward, I disagree. It is not<br />

clear how six members of the Nongovernmental<br />

Board will be able<br />

to prove that a certain individual<br />

is not competent enough. And<br />

who will they be vetoing? To be<br />

able to choose somebody, one must<br />

have a choice, and there will only<br />

be a choice if professionals and<br />

honest people, who can sacrifice<br />

themselves (such is the work in a<br />

true anticorruption court), accept<br />

offer to work there. But normal<br />

people are unlikely to go there<br />

because no conditions have been<br />

created. Maybe, our Western<br />

partners’ plans included a strategy<br />

– to force us to pass this law<br />

for the time being, leaving the<br />

VKKS free to apply its methods<br />

afterwards.”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!