Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bodies, and the Nine Days in July 2025 When Their Independence Wavered

On 22 July 2025, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (parliament) adopted Law No. 4555-IX. Nine days later, on 31 July, it adopted Law No. 4560-IX. Both were published, on the day they were adopted, in the Verkhovna Rada’s newspaper Holos Ukrainy.

In its annual report on Ukraine dated 4 November 2025, the European Commission writes that the first law “placed the independent, specialized anti-corruption bodies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — under the authority of the politically appointed Prosecutor General.” The second law, it states, was adopted quickly “following domestic protests and international criticism” and restored the independence of NABU and SAPO.

What was at stake becomes clear when you look at how anti-corruption work is divided among these bodies.

Prevention, investigation, prosecution and trial are handled by separate bodies

NAZK is responsible for prevention. The European Commission’s report cites checking officials’ asset declarations and monitoring their lifestyles as among NAZK’s work. NAZK is accountable to the Verkhovna Rada and reports to the Cabinet of Ministers (Law “On Prevention of Corruption,” Article 4).

NABU is a “central executive body with special status.” As guarantees of its independence, the law provides that its director is chosen through a special competitive selection process, that the grounds for ending the director’s term are limited to those set out in law, and that staff are also hired competitively (Article 4). It also states that any instruction or demand not based on law is “unlawful and need not be complied with.”

SAP has no dedicated law of its own. It is a body established by a single article of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office.” That article was added by Law No. 198-VIII of 12 February 2015 and rewritten in full by Law No. 3509-IX of 8 December 2023. The current text establishes SAP as a legal entity under public law, housed in a building separate from the Office of the Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General and their deputies are prohibited from issuing instructions to SAP prosecutors in their official duties (Article 8-1, paragraph 6).

The High Anti-Corruption Court is a specialized court established by the 2018 law. The law provided that it would begin work once at least 35 judges had been appointed through selection (at least 10 of them in the appellate chamber). In selecting judges, a mechanism gives a “Public Council of International Experts” a role supporting the High Qualification Commission of Judges in judging whether candidates meet integrity standards.

NABU investigates, SAP oversees that investigation and prosecutes, and the High Anti-Corruption Court tries the case. The two laws of July 2025 touched the NABU and SAP portions of this chain.

What the EU has made a condition of membership

When the European Commission recommended on 17 June 2022 that Ukraine be granted candidate status, anti-corruption action was one of seven conditions it set out as a prerequisite. It listed building a track record of investigations, prosecutions and convictions in high-level corruption cases, completing the appointment of a new head of SAP, and starting and completing the selection of a new director of NABU.

When the “Fundamentals” cluster of the EU accession negotiations was opened in June 2026, the EU’s common position paper likewise stated that NABU’s jurisdiction needed to be expanded to cover all high-risk public offices, including senior officials in the Office of the President and heads of oblast administrations. Along with allowing SAP to open criminal proceedings against members of parliament without prior approval from the Prosecutor General, this was included among the interim benchmarks for moving the negotiations forward.

The law of 22 July: No. 4555-IX

This law is formally an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code titled “On Special Rules for the Pre-Trial Investigation of Crimes Related to Persons Who Have Gone Missing Under Special Circumstances Under Martial Law.” Alongside what its title describes, it contained provisions concerning NABU and SAP. The main ones are as follows (summarized from the text):

• The Prosecutor General may instruct the head of any body conducting a pre-trial investigation, in writing, to submit case materials, and that instruction must be complied with; there is no provision excluding NABU from this (Criminal Procedure Code, Article 36)
• The Prosecutor General has the authority to transfer a case within NABU’s jurisdiction to another investigative body if the investigation is not effective, or if there are objective circumstances under martial law preventing the body from working (Article 36)
• Only a decision of the Prosecutor General may designate the head or deputy head of SAP as the prosecutor in charge of a specific case (Article 37)
• Where there is a dispute over jurisdiction in a case that could fall under NABU, the Prosecutor General decides (Article 216)
• Under the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” the Prosecutor General is made the senior prosecutor over the head of SAP, and the prohibition on instructing SAP prosecutors is limited to the Prosecutor General’s first deputy and deputies (Article 8-1, paragraph 6)
• For the duration of martial law, prosecutors may be placed in the Office of the Prosecutor General or in oblast prosecutor’s offices without competitive selection, through transfer from a lower-level prosecutor’s office or the appointment of a non-prosecutor (transitional provisions of the same law)

The European Commission’s report notes that in the same July, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the State Bureau of Investigation carried out numerous searches involving NABU staff, that some staff were arrested and detained, and that the SBU conducted unannounced inspections of how NABU and SAP handled classified information — and that the Verkhovna Rada adopted this law shortly afterward.

The law of 31 July: No. 4560-IX

The law adopted nine days later is formally titled “On Strengthening the Powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.” It rewrote, once again, the articles that 4555-IX had rewritten. The main differences are as follows.

4560-IX also provided that NABU’s detectives (investigators) follow only the written instructions of SAP prosecutors, and that the head of SAP exercises the powers of the “head of a prosecutorial body” as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code.

At the same time, new provisions were added. Staff of NABU, SAP, the Economic Security Bureau, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State Bureau of Investigation, and the National Police who have access to state secrets must be checked by polygraph, at least once every two years, by a method agreed with the SBU, to determine whether they are acting for a state the Verkhovna Rada has recognized as an aggressor state. The SBU must check the same staff within six months of the law taking effect. Rules barring NABU staff from leaving the country during martial law, except for business travel, must be put in place within one month (transitional provisions).

The European Commission’s report states that while 4560-IX restored the independence of NABU and SAP, it left other problematic provisions untouched. As an example, it cites the provision allowing prosecutors to be transferred or appointed to oblast prosecutor’s offices or the Office of the Prosecutor General without competitive selection under martial law, noting that transfers using this provision had actually begun. It also points out that the SBU’s checks on law-enforcement staff lack safeguards against abuse.

Other challenges the European Commission raises

The same report raises several other points.

• NABU’s first external, independent performance audit, completed in May 2025, rated NABU as “moderately effective”
• NABU still does not, in practice, have its own communications-interception capability. A memorandum it signed with the SBU in October 2024 sets the implementation plan for after martial law is lifted
• In the selection to add 25 judges to the High Anti-Corruption Court, only 2 of 140 candidates made it through to appointment
• NAZK retains a central role in anti-corruption policy, but concerns have emerged about the fairness and effectiveness of some of its work

How power is divided among the President, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers under martial law is covered in what Ukraine’s President, Verkhovna Rada, and Cabinet of Ministers each decide.