Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption U-Turn Hides a Subtle Power Play

In a dramatic reversal, Ukraine’s parliament has overwhelmingly passed a presidential bill to restore the independence of its key anti-corruption agencies. The move comes just days after the same body, led by the president’s party, approved a controversial law to subordinate these institutions, triggering widespread public protest and stark warnings from Kyiv’s Western allies.

The crisis erupted when President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration pushed through legislation placing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the control of the Prosecutor General, a presidential appointee. The move was preceded by raids on the agencies’ offices by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) under the pretext of finding “Russian agents.” The response was swift and severe: mass protests, the first of their kind since the war began, broke out in major cities, while the United States and European Union threatened to withhold billions in aid, jeopardizing Ukraine’s war effort and its path to EU membership.

Forced to retreat, President Zelensky introduced a new bill presented as a compromise to placate both domestic critics and international partners. However, a closer look reveals that while the law restores formal independence, it contains significant loopholes that maintain channels of influence for the president’s office. Under the new rules, NABU detectives are now required to undergo mandatory polygraph tests conducted by the SBU every six months. A failure could lead to the loss of security clearance and immediate dismissal, effectively placing a leash on investigators. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General retains the power to take over cases under certain conditions, such as those related to the ongoing war, creating a potential backdoor for political interference.

During the parliamentary debate, which was broadcast live for the first time since the start of the conflict, opposition leaders seized the opportunity to lambast the ruling party for its initial power grab. The session became a platform for political posturing, with an eye on potential future elections. The stark contrast in voting—the initial controversial law passed with 263 votes, while the corrective bill sailed through with 331—underscored the immense pressure the government had been under.

While Kyiv has stepped back from the brink, averting an immediate crisis with its Western backers, the episode has exposed the ongoing struggle for control over Ukraine’s state institutions. The new law, celebrated as a victory for transparency, leaves the country’s anti-corruption architecture vulnerable to political maneuvering. This underlying tension suggests that the fight for genuine institutional independence, a cornerstone of the democratic reforms demanded by its partners, is far from over.