BY
As predicted almost 2 months ago, the
assault upon the legislatively ring-fenced prosecutor arena that is
exclusively the remit of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU)
has begun.
It is naturally not
framed in such a way as to undermine the jurisdiction of NABU by removing any
competencies, but rather to open up that exclusive zone prescribed by statue to
other parts of the PGO machinery.
Prosecutor General Lutsenko, is clearly
not happy with an independent entity within his empire capable of prosecuting his
prosecutors and also challenging his interference. Therefore with
existing statute on the side of NABU, he has submitted
amendments to the legislation –“There is so
much crime that to give the exclusive right to fight the manifestations of
high-level crime to one small law enforcement agency is inefficient. We
will not in the least reduce the powers NABU … but in parallel, if the same
officials who may be suspected of committing corruption crimes leave the police,
prosecutors or fiscals offices, these cases by the decision of the public
prosecutor may be moved.”
Prima facie, what is wrong with that? A small department
dealing with the highest ranking institutional managers, public servants, civil
service and political class, swamped by innumerable investigations among these
most odious and nefarious of classes surely has its limitations and therefore
why not pass the cases of those that leave their posts mid-investigation to
other parts of the PGO? Does that not allow NABU to concentrate upon
investigations of those that remain in post? Should the NABU remit not
terminate once such people leave the office they hold specifically within the
NABU legislative remit even if investigations are still on-going?
Should we not believe
that this is a managerial decision based upon integrity by the Prosecutor
General to efficiently concentrate the efforts of his empire more effectively?
Well perhaps – but there
is a question/perception of trust, or the severe lack thereof, that immediately
undermines and casts cynicism upon such a proposal. There was good reason
why NABU was created the way that it was and given the remit it exclusively
holds. Those reasons are as valid today as they were when NABU became a
reality.
NABU has far more public
trust than does Yuri Lutsenko – who will forever be perceived as a politician
and grey cardinal associated with behind the curtain grubby deals rather than
an independent prosecutor who leads a PGO that retains many of the most odious
of prosecutors the Ukrainian constituency expects to be removed if there is to
be even the thinnest veneer of change within the institution.
Given the perception of
NABU vis a vis the Prosecutor General and the rest of his PGO empire,
for the perception of public trust to grow rather than diminish with this
proposal, as an alternative why not make that “one
small law enforcement agency” bigger rather than open up its statutorily protected
turf to an otherwise distrusted PGO?
Is it a matter of money?
Could not the salaries of all those prosecutors that should have been
sacked but haven’t be used for more duly vetted and trained NABU personnel?
Is there not the very
real prospect, should such amendments become law, that many under NABU
investigation will leave their roles simply to have their cases handed over to
a PGO nobody trusts and who both suspect and public alike will expect to
deliberately fumble or simply close those cases so the suspects are never held
to account?
What happens to the
cases of Messrs Martynenko (formerly People’s Front financial sponsor) and
Onyshchenko (Ms Tymoshenko’s financial sponsor) for example?
In avoiding that
accountability, both criminal and administrative, could those suspects not then
rejoin their former careers after a “career break” with “case closed” stamped
upon previous investigations? It is perhaps a particularly cynical lens
to view the Attorney General’s proposal – but as already stated he is simply
not trusted and is ingrained within the public psyche as a Grey Cardinal and
doer of grubby deals.
It may be his decision
is based upon esprit de corps for the PGO machinery that is not NABU.
Several successful prosecutions by the PGO of cases taken from NABU may
be perceived by Mr Lutsenko as the only way to increase the trust of the
Ukrainian constituency. As societal opinion generally lags behind events
however, even if that were to materialise it will still be years before the PGO
managed to catch up with the thus far almost untainted image of NABU within the
public perception. Indeed several such successful prosecutions simply
would not cut it – there would have to be dozens to undo the current dismal
perception of the PGO.
Thus the merits, or
otherwise, of this attempt by the Prosecutor General to not only tread upon the
NABU statutorily maintained manicured private lawns, but to actually
remove part of its garden and open it up to others, is therefore open to debate
– and time will tell whether the cynics will be (once again) proven to be
right.
A reader may rightly err
toward this being a decidedly retarded step.
No comments:
Post a Comment