Blog
Published on July 29, 2025
by Brian Dooley, Suchita Uppal
By Brian Dooley and Suchita Uppal
What happened and why does it matter?
On July 22, Ukraine’s parliament passed Draft Law No. 12414, handing over major control over the country’s anti-corruption institutions — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)- to the Prosecutor General’s Office. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed it into law that same evening.
This is a significant shift. Until now, NABU and SAPO had operated independently, by design. They were created in response to widespread civil society demands after the 2013–2014 Euromaidan protests, to investigate and prosecute high-level corruption without political interference. Neither body reported to the Prosecutor General, a presidential appointee.
Law 12414 changed that, giving the Prosecutor General authority to issue binding instructions to NABU, override SAPO’s autonomy, and reassign or close active corruption cases. In effect, it knocks down one of the main firewalls Ukraine put in place after 2014.
The move comes amid a broader crackdown on anti-corruption activists, including judicial harassment of leading reformer Vitaliy Shabunin. Human Rights First has joined local and international NGOs in condemning these efforts.
Facing backlash at home and abroad, Zelenskyy submitted a new draft law (No. 13533) just two days later, saying it would restore independence to the NABU and SAPO.
How did the EU respond?
Quickly — and sharply. Fighting corruption is a key condition for Ukraine’s EU membership bid, and Brussels made its concerns clear.
EU Commissioner of Enlargement Marta Kos called the law a “serious step back.” A Commission spokesperson warned that EU financial aid depends on continued progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reportedly phoned Zelenskyy directly, warning that the law would breach Ukraine’s EU accession commitments. While not officially linked, a $1.7 billion EU aid cut soon followed.
France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and G7 ambassadors all echoed the EU’s alarm.
When Zelenskyy proposed the replacement law, Brussels cautiously welcomed the move. Von der Leyen promised support for Ukraine’s EU path, but stressed that independent anti-corruption institutions must be preserved.
What is Ukrainian civil society saying?
Hours before the vote, NABU and SAPO themselves issued a joint statement warning that the law would destroy the anti-corruption infrastructure built since 2015.
Journalists compared the legislation to practices under the Yanukovych regime.
In the first major protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, citizens took to the streets in Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, and even frontline Kharkiv. Protestors complained the law “pushes [Ukraine] ten years backwards” and “destroys reforms achieved [] over many years”. Transparency International’s Ukraine branch called it a “massive setback in anti-corruption reform” A representative from the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Centre echoed “We’re returning to the system we had under [former authoritarian President] Yanukovych.”
Many credit the public outcry with prompting Zelenskyy’s reversal. NABU says the new bill would “restore all procedural powers and guarantees of independence,” and confirmed it helped draft the language. The Anti-Corruption Action Center also backed it, calling it a return to “the principles previously dismantled by the Verkhovna Rada.”
What’s next?
Zelenskyy’s replacement bill — Draft Law No. 13533 — is scheduled for a vote in parliament on July 31. If passed, the bill would roll back the most controversial parts of Law 12414 and restore the independence of NABU and SAPO.
But there’s still uncertainty on whether the lawmakers who backed the original law remain open to reversing it. Civil society groups and international partners are watching closely.
Even if the replacement bill passes, though, broader concerns remain about the ongoing pressure on anti-corruption institutions and activists — and should be part of the ongoing international dialogue with Ukraine.
Human Rights First has been covering anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine for the past decade. In 2017, Brian Dooley briefed the U.S. Helsinki Commission on legislative, judicial and physical attacks on anti-corruption activists in Ukraine. Later that year, we reported from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on a series of attacks on activists who exposed local corruption. In 2023, we issued a joint report with Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Centre on irregularities in reconstruction contracts in Kharkiv.
Downloads:
