How and where did you find out about the protests?
I was driving with my company commander between Orikhove and Hulyaipole, and news started pouring into my phone. My former parliamentary assistants, who are now leaders of various anti-corruption institutions, wrote. Then the Maidan activists called — Vova Parasyuk, who serves in the eighth regiment of SOF, Lyosha Hrytsenko, who is in command of tactical aviation. A colleague from SBU, who is responsible for secret operations, called — he was worried and even said that he was going to go to the theater. And when I returned to my house in Zaporizhzhia, I felt that a piece of my life had been stolen. The law on the independence of the anti-corruption prosecutorʼs office and the anti-corruption bureau was my first law in the Verkhovna Rada. I organized all the difficult negotiations to ensure that this decision was passed.
The history of anti-corruption organizations is actually very long. Many people have found it at this point where we are now, and know nothing more. Tell us how it was at the start, who supported your bill, who was against it. What was the fate of those politicians?
This law was born as a result of the work, first of all, of the Anti-Corruption Center — they came up with the initiative. Vitaliy Shabunin then became my assistant in parliament. Then we involved Georgians, they already had experience in fighting top corruption in their country. Controversial, but it was. I then met Mikheil Saakashvili, he brought in David Sakvarelidze, who was a prosecutor in Georgia. It was he who proposed the concept of illicit enrichment. That it is not necessary to prove that an official stole something. It is enough that he cannot explain the origin of the property.
Yuriy Lutsenko took an active part in the development of this law. I even suggested that he put the first signature, as a representative of the largest Poroshenko faction in parliament at that time. The "Peopleʼs Front" of Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleksandr Turchynov also participated. In short, we passed this law through the Verkhovna Rada. I was very proud of this, because before that, the anti-corruption prosecutorʼs office was supposed to be part of the Prosecutor Generalʼs Office, and this contradicted the very idea.
What was the idea?
NABU and SAPO were not created to multiply anti-corruption bodies. We were in a quagmire of corruption — wherever you step, you drown. The Prosecutor Generalʼs Office is corrupt, the Security Service is corrupt, the police are corrupt. And to overcome this in a civilized way, we had to create islands of solid land that would begin to drain the land around them. That was the geodetic plan, if you like. And we gave independence to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutorʼs Office so that it could also cleanse the General Prosecutorʼs Office of corruption.
Back then, the post-Maidan atmosphere, the memory of the Heavenly Hundred, helped a lot. And the then MPs, the president, and ministers were simply used to the fact that laws did not apply to them. Back then, the children of politicians would calmly post on Facebook how they were coolly driving a Porsche and celebrating their birthday in Monaco. If you were an official or a politician, you were definitely above the law. Thatʼs why this law came — the MPs didnʼt take it seriously.
Then, as soon as the law began to be implemented, huge problems began. We involved a foreigner in the election of the NABU director. And this was not yet spelled out in the law. According to the legislation at that time, the head was to be elected by voters, who were to be delegated by parliamentary factions — this is approximately the principle by which the Central Election Commission is formed.
As a member of the “Selfhelp” faction and at the same time the head of the Anti-Corruption Committee, I proposed that our faction nominate Giovanni Kessler as an elector. He was a very influential and experienced European prosecutor, very well versed in anti-corruption. “Selfhelp” supported me, and we, on behalf of the parliamentary Ukrainian force, suggested that an Italian prosecutor of German origin take part in the election of the director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Giovanni arrived and was very persistent and active.
Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office Giovanni Kessler. The competition commission for the selection of the NABU chairman, in addition to Kesler, included former Minister of Culture Yevhen Nyshchuk and co-author of the text of the Constitution Viktor Musiyak.
And everything was great, two unknown candidate lawyers won the competition. And after that I had a painful experience. First, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Groysman, and then the then President Petro Poroshenko called me and said: "Yehor, these two candidates are not suitable. There is information from the Security Service of Ukraine that they are connected with corrupt prosecutors. The competition must be canceled."
This reminds me a lot of something.
Yes, history repeats itself if lessons are not done. If you don’t pass the third grade, you’re learning the second grade program again. I tell them: listen, we made the legislation, it’s been implemented. I trust the people who were in this commission. The chief prosecutor of the European Union was there. We will make a huge mistake if we throw it all away now because we don’t like the candidates. If there are problems with the new director of NABU, the law stipulates that there should be an external audit of foreigners every year. And if the audit shows that there is a problem, then the director can be fired. In all other cases, this was not provided for.
We argued quite seriously, not for the first time, but the law was implemented, one of the two lawyers was chosen — his name was Artem Sytnyk. He became the director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Then everyone knows the story. And the audit story continued for two years, when again the people of the then President Poroshenko brought him to the parliament... What was his name?
It was an analogue of a “ski instructor” …
Yes, the pro-presidential factions brought some guy to parliament [his name was Nigel Brown]. The then-chairman of the presidentʼs faction literally comes out and says: "We have a great candidate, here he is standing in the parliamentary box." On the other hand, the Americans gave a very cool candidate — Robert Storch. At that time, he was the person who inspected the FBI.
And then the vote came, and this great candidate from Washington did not gain any votes. And the presidential candidate could not answer any of the parliamentariansʼ questions. He said that they bought him a ticket and told him to come to the Verkhovna Rada — thatʼs all he knew up to that point. Fortunately, we blocked him too, and simply did not appoint a single auditor. This long history of pressure on NABU and SAPO was one of the reasons why they did not succeed.
Nigel Brown in the Verkhovna Rada during the vote on his candidacy.
Thatʼs exactly what I wanted to ask you about. Because then these two structures, NABU and SAPO, headed by Nazar Kholodnytskyi, instead of supporting each other, started fighting among themselves.
A lot of resources were invested in this. As the chairman of the committee, I tried to stop it. I met and talked with both of them a lot. And I saw how the top officials of the time were putting in a lot of effort to create a conflict between them.
Artem Sytnyk (left) and Nazar Kholodnytskyi, December 2016.
For example, this was done by Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.
The entire state machine was working there. The then Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov also played a very important role.
But even then, many understood that this conflict was being fanned, and there was hope that these educated people who had passed the competitions would be able to counteract the old system.
Do you know why it’s so hard to build a state? Because you can’t borrow that experience. It’s like, you know, the growth of a person. You can’t have the qualifications of an 18-year-old in two years, and at 18 you can’t have the qualifications of a 40-year-old, and so on.
On the one hand, they both had a great chance and made a lot of good decisions. They didn’t destroy top corruption, but they broke the circle of guarantees. When the [Oleksandr] Onyshchenko case started and Poroshenko said he wouldn’t contact him, Onyshchenko said: “How [is it possible]? We have a business.” Roman Nasirov wasn’t covered up either.
But they didnʼt arrest him. He still hasnʼt been punished and recently almost mobilized.
You see, defeating top corruption is a task for the entire Ukrainian society. I concluded for myself a long time ago: for the laws to work, for us to solve any task — whether it’s a powerful army, or the absence of top corruption, or a super economy, there must be three components.
First, society must really want it. It’s not just that someone did something, but people are like: “Oh, well, we’re not interested in this at all and don’t know much about it.” By the way, that’s how it was with anti-corruption agencies back then. A handful of good journalists probably understood, nodded their heads, but for people it was something incomprehensible.
The second thing is that there must be legal legal instruments. In this case, laws. We did that then, but there was no third. And this curse of Ukraine has been going on for decades.
The third component of any success is called “political will”. You must have a Minister of Internal Affairs who hates corruption, the same Prosecutor General, the same judges, the head of the Security Service. And for them to be like that, you must have a president and parliament like that. As soon as these three factors come together, top corruption will be overcome.
At a closed meeting with journalists, I spoke with the president. And if we talk about impressions, first of all, he looked very tired. He said that he hadnʼt slept for two days. And he also had some kind of, you know, resentment towards journalists who kept asking about SAPO and NABU. He said that almost all his time was taken up by the war, looking for money for the military, Patriot, and things like "people, slow down! We have Russia as enemy!"
Iʼll tell you as an MP of the 8th convocation. I liked the very quick reaction of the authorities. The president did not take the traditional position of "I donʼt care at all." He did not think (and say) that the people on the street are agents of the Kremlin, the hand of Moscow, the "Shatun" operation. Although I have seen such things.
There was the case like this.
You know, people probably think: “But that’s insincere, they got scared.” In such cases, when it comes to politicians, I always advise you to look exclusively at actions. Sincere or not sincere — with this words you have to deal with loved ones or friends. But “an official” is a function. He voted for a good decision and he is good one. He voted for a bad one — he is anti-good one.
During the conversation, you mentioned Vitaliy Shabunin and the Anti-Corruption Center (ACC) several times. There is currently a case against Vitaliy for evasion and fraud (we have already written about it). Evasion is because he was seconded to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption for a certain period of time, when he was supposed to serve in his unit. The prosecutorsʼ position is that the law prohibits the secondment of military personnel to non-military bodies during martial law. The case is often called politically motivated. It is being conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), which, according to various sources, is coordinated from the Office of the President. But there is another aspect to it. Society has divided into two parts: some say that it is very important, and for the army as well, to fight corruption, which is what ACC is doing; on the other hand, the military, and in particular my friend, a public figure who is fighting, says that the rear lives in a parallel world. That for him the main problem of the state is corruption, and for the military and their relatives — unfair mobilization. When those who have the necessary connections can decide under what conditions and where they serve. Which side of this discussion are you on as a military serviceman, public figure and former friend of Vitaliy Shabunin?
Indeed, Vitaliy and I did a lot of good things in creating. In particular, anti-corruption legislation, so I am probably not the most objective expert.
Be subjective.
I would like to respectfully say to your friend that corruption is f*cking corrupt, it also undermines mobilization. That is, all these fixers-for-hire are made through bribes.
As for the case, I — as a commander — know that in the army it is easiest to put a person in his place, in order, in the good sense of the word. I have incredible people, including journalists and human rights activists, with very different freedom-loving stories behind them, but everyone is pulling their own strings: both soldiers and sergeants, and some are already officers.
Accordingly, for me it looks like a massacre. That is, there are many people who have evaded the army, and Vitaliy received such attention. The law must be the same for everyone, or there is no law.
In November 2016, public activists, together with Sobolev, demanded that NABU be given the right to independently wiretap those involved in their investigations. At that time, SBU was engaged in “wiretapping” for them. The central poster is held by the head of the Central Investigation Commission Vitaliy Shabunin, on the left by Yehor Sobolev, and on the right by Oleksiy Hrytsenko.
There is another argument in this discussion — "he will be more useful elsewhere". This is often said, and not only about Shabunin. This is what they say about stand-up comedians who collect millions and get reservations, about singers. I did not serve and cannot answer such questions, but you are a soldier. You could also be a cool person, for example, an analyst and sit in the headquarters of SBU. And everyone would say something like “well, what kind of drone operator is Sobolev?! What the hell?!” How did you decide not to donate, but to fight?
I decided so, and I would do it again. The best example is personal. I always have the most questions and the most demands on Sobolev. On the other hand, I understand that not all people are equally strong and responsible. And I tell my brothers that they shouldnʼt scold everyone, that they are draft dodgers, that they have been serving for three years because of them. This wonʼt work if we need people in the unit.
Explain that everyoneʼs contribution is important, and you can prove yourself in war not only with an FPV drone in your hands. There is also logistics and the same analytics. If people are engaged in volunteering, in anything that brings victory closer, I support it. Do you have to wear a uniform for this? Itʼs also a difficult question. I personally believe that a person in uniform should perform combat missions.
Now I am a detachment commander, I have no one to collect donations. Previously, I did it simply through personal connections, but now my needs have increased tenfold, and I need to organize people who will collect aid. I need to find these people somewhere. In short, the current military unit is ideally a core in uniform, and everyone with well-deserved war-veteranʼs licences, and a large civilian infrastructure around. And for this we need legal rules.