Ukraine Protests New Law Undermining Anti-Corruption Agencies \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Thousands rallied across Ukraine to oppose a law weakening anti-corruption bodies. Protesters demanded President Zelenskyy veto a bill critics say boosts executive control. The move could jeopardize Ukraine’s EU hopes and Western support.
Quick Looks
- Massive protests erupted across Ukraine after a bill passed that alters anti-corruption oversight.
- Critics claim the law weakens NABU and SAPO, handing power to the prosecutor general.
- Despite public outcry, President Zelenskyy signed the bill into law Tuesday evening.
- The EU has condemned the bill, citing a setback in Ukraine’s accession efforts.
- Protesters fear Zelenskyy’s allies will gain influence over corruption probes.
- Activists argue misuse of resources could undermine Ukraine’s war effort.
- Transparency International and EU leaders urge respect for independent institutions.
- This marks Ukraine’s first large-scale anti-government protest since Russia’s invasion began.
Deep Look
For the first time since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in mass protest—not in response to the war, but to government legislation many believe threatens the heart of the country’s anti-corruption framework. Demonstrations erupted across Kyiv and several other Ukrainian cities on Tuesday after the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, passed a controversial bill critics say would severely weaken the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs.
Despite fierce opposition from civil society organizations, legal experts, and ordinary citizens, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the bill into law late Tuesday, according to the parliament’s website. The law expands the powers of the prosecutor general over two pivotal anti-corruption bodies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Both agencies have played vital roles in rooting out systemic corruption in Ukraine, particularly in the post-2014 period that followed the Euromaidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity.
The bill’s passage and rapid enactment have triggered widespread alarm not only within Ukraine but also among the country’s international allies. European Union officials, including Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, have warned that the law represents a significant regression in Ukraine’s commitment to rule of law—an essential requirement for EU membership and continued Western support.
“Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path,” Kos posted on X, formerly Twitter. “This is a serious step back. Rule of law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations.”
The Law’s Impact on Anti-Corruption Institutions
The newly signed legislation grants the prosecutor general sweeping oversight of investigations previously controlled independently by NABU and SAPO. Critics argue that this change amounts to political encroachment on the independence of agencies specifically created to investigate high-level corruption—including within the president’s own political circle.
In a joint statement, NABU and SAPO voiced strong opposition to the law, warning that it would render SAPO’s head powerless and reduce NABU to little more than a subsidiary of the prosecutor general’s office. “In effect, if this bill becomes law, the head of SAPO will become a nominal figure, while NABU will lose its independence and turn into a subdivision of the prosecutor general’s office,” the statement read.
This centralization of power raises red flags among legal experts and democracy watchdogs. Transparency International’s Ukrainian branch issued a scathing rebuke, calling the law “a direct threat to Ukraine’s anti-corruption achievements.” The organization warned that the move undermines one of the most significant reforms enacted since Ukraine’s 2014 revolution and jeopardizes the nation’s credibility with foreign partners.
“Instead of safeguarding progress, the state has chosen to dismantle a system painstakingly built over the last decade,” Transparency International said. “This will not only erode public trust—it will cost Ukraine support on the global stage.”
Public Protests and Civil Society Response
Tuesday’s protests marked a watershed moment in wartime Ukraine. While smaller-scale demonstrations have occurred throughout the conflict—mostly focused on the return of prisoners of war or missing persons—this was the first large-scale, coordinated civic protest aimed squarely at government policy.
Thousands gathered in Kyiv’s city center, some holding Ukrainian flags, others waving placards that read “Veto the Law,” “No to Corruption,” and “Protect Ukraine’s Future.” The mood was tense and emotional. Many protesters voiced concerns that while Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives on the battlefield, their own government is weakening internal protections against corruption.
“Ukraine has far fewer resources than Russia in this war,” said popular blogger and activist Ihor Lachenkov, who helped mobilize the protest through his social media platforms, which reach over 1.5 million followers. “If we misuse them—or worse, if they’re stolen—our fight becomes harder. Every cent must go toward the defense effort, not into the pockets of thieves.”
War veteran Oleh Symoroz, who lost both legs in 2022 after being wounded in battle, attended the protest in a wheelchair. He condemned the law as a betrayal of Ukraine’s democratic values. “Those who swore to uphold the Constitution are now shielding their inner circle,” he said. “Instead of setting an example of zero tolerance for corruption, the president is taking control of criminal investigations.”
This public outcry draws historical parallels to the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan protests—both pivotal moments in modern Ukrainian history where mass civic movements brought about political transformation. While Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership has earned him global praise, the protest underscores a growing internal tension between public unity in wartime and democratic accountability in governance.
International Repercussions and EU Relations
Beyond Ukraine’s borders, the new law has already sparked concern from key international stakeholders. Ukraine’s commitment to battling corruption is a cornerstone condition of both its application for European Union membership and its access to financial and military assistance from the West.
The EU has tied billions in aid to reforms within Ukraine’s justice and law enforcement sectors. Brussels has long viewed NABU and SAPO as critical institutions in ensuring transparency and accountability. Their track record of prosecuting high-level corruption has been central to building international confidence in Ukraine’s political and legal maturity.
The legislation’s impact on these bodies could severely strain relations with the EU and potentially delay or complicate Ukraine’s membership negotiations. Some analysts have warned that if Ukraine is seen as backsliding on its reform commitments, it could face a freeze in accession talks or even risk losing parts of its aid package.
In Washington and other Western capitals, the move is also being watched closely. Ukraine’s ability to present itself as a reliable partner in the fight for democracy hinges on its internal governance. Any perception that Zelenskyy is consolidating power at the expense of transparency could shift political sentiment, particularly among lawmakers and taxpayers in donor countries.
Zelenskyy’s Political Maneuvering
The law’s passage comes just days after President Zelenskyy reshuffled his wartime Cabinet—a move widely interpreted by political observers as a consolidation of power. While executive control during times of war is not uncommon, critics argue that the timing of these changes, combined with the new legislation, points to an increasing centralization of authority.
Adding to the controversy, Ukraine’s domestic security agency recently detained two NABU employees on suspicion of ties to Russia. Other agency staff were searched over unrelated allegations. While the government has not provided details, the arrests have raised suspicion that they were orchestrated to justify broader changes to anti-corruption oversight.
Zelenskyy’s office has not issued an official response to the protests or to the criticism from international partners. The president, who once campaigned on a platform of fighting corruption and strengthening democratic institutions, now finds himself accused of undermining both.
Some analysts argue Zelenskyy is navigating a difficult balance between maintaining national unity during wartime and managing internal dissent. Others suggest the president is taking advantage of the war’s distraction to quietly consolidate power and shield political allies from scrutiny.
What’s at Stake
For Ukraine, this moment is about more than just one law. It is a test of whether the country can remain committed to democratic values even under the existential pressure of war. The protests reflect deep-rooted concerns that political expediency is once again taking precedence over justice and accountability—a dynamic Ukrainians have fought hard to reverse.
Ukraine’s previous revolutions were driven by public resistance to corruption, authoritarianism, and the abuse of power. Those same themes are re-emerging now. If history is any guide, Ukrainian civil society is unlikely to remain silent.
Activists and reform advocates say the fight for anti-corruption infrastructure must continue. They are urging international partners not just to speak out, but to use their influence to ensure Ukraine remains on a democratic path.
“Support for Ukraine must go hand in hand with support for rule of law,” said a joint statement by several civil society organizations, including the Anti-Corruption Action Center. “Our soldiers are fighting for freedom on the battlefield. At home, we must fight for the institutions that protect our democracy.”
You must Register or Login to post a comment.