By Gyunduz Mamedov, PhD in Regulation, Deputy Prosecutor Normal of Ukraine (2019–2022) and Nataliia Mazur, Lawyer, AZONES Regulation Agency
Final week, the problem of anti-corruption as soon as once more got here to the forefront in Ukraine. The catalyst was a sequence of legislative initiatives that would have curtailed the independence of the Nationwide Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Workplace. These strikes triggered a robust wave of criticism. What was putting was not solely the outrage itself but in addition the breadth of the response. The loudest voice got here from the youth. This era was the primary to take to the streets, sending a transparent message: the independence of anti-corruption establishments and Ukraine’s democratic growth are issues of our shared future.
This protest was greater than a response to a single legislative proposal. It was a reminder that, for the youthful era, democratic values are a part of their id. It mirrored an understanding that with out truthful guidelines there may be no justice, no growth, and no belief. Because of this, regardless of its preliminary rhetoric, the federal government was compelled to step again. Right this moment, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a regulation restoring the powers that had been stripped from the anti-corruption our bodies.
But this confrontation uncovered a a lot deeper subject: the absence of a unified imaginative and prescient for the Ukrainian state. On this dialogue, it’s instructive to look to the expertise of nations which have efficiently moved from entrenched corruption to efficient and clear governance. In fact, Ukraine has its personal distinctive context and can’t merely replicate overseas fashions. Nevertheless, it could research which options have really labored – and which remained merely declarative.
One of the crucial ceaselessly cited examples in international anti-corruption observe is Singapore. When the nation gained independence, it lacked developed establishments, sources, and established traditions of statehood. Nonetheless, its management adopted a principled coverage of zero tolerance for corruption, embedding it within the very structure of public administration.
In Singapore, the linchpin of the anti-corruption system is the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), working since 1952. Its uniqueness lies not solely in its independence from the manager department but in addition in its direct accountability to the Prime Minister – and, in distinctive instances, to the President, notably if the Prime Minister makes an attempt to halt an investigation. CPIB isn’t merely mandated to combat bribery; it’s empowered to make arrests, conduct searches, entry monetary accounts, and hint even minimal advantages that may point out corruption. This is applicable to instances involving officers in any respect ranges, together with ministers and members of parliament. Singaporean regulation acknowledges no idea of a "permissible reward": any quid professional quo can set off a legal investigation.
Moreover, Singapore’s civil service is topic to strict moral controls – from codes of conduct to obligatory rotation of positions thought-about high-risk. This built-in infrastructure, combining enforcement with administrative prevention, ensures distinctive effectivity: in 2024, for example, CPIB secured convictions in 97% of its instances. Finally, society was supplied a brand new ethic of public service primarily based on transparency, competitors, and professionalism. This strategy eradicated not solely petty corruption but in addition instilled a long-lasting tradition of intolerance towards it.
Equally illustrative is the expertise of Hong Kong. Within the Nineteen Seventies, public belief within the authorities was deeply eroded: police bribery, abuse in licensing, and hospital extortion have been widespread. The response was the institution, in 1974, of the Unbiased Fee In opposition to Corruption (ICAC), which was granted actual instruments of affect from day one. ICAC features as a constitutionally assured, standalone physique, reporting to no ministry.
Its construction is constructed on clear specialization: one division conducts operational investigations, one other analyzes inner procedures in private and non-private establishments, and a 3rd focuses on public schooling and cultural change. ICAC has the authorized authority to require suspects to declare property, freeze suspicious funds, conduct covert investigative actions, and provoke procedural reforms in authorities our bodies. It operates 24/7, with a public hotline and obligatory evaluation of each grievance. Its excessive stage of transparency is strengthened by unbiased inner and exterior audits.
Importantly, the Fee’s work has at all times prolonged past legal investigations. It research systemic vulnerabilities, proposes authorized and institutional treatments, and engages actively with the general public. Probably the most outstanding consequence has been a profound change in societal habits: corruption, as soon as seen as an inevitable a part of the system, grew to become socially unacceptable. Hong Kong demonstrated that corruption isn’t a matter of "nationwide character" however the results of weak establishments and a scarcity of oversight.
These examples reveal that the independence of anti-corruption establishments isn’t a mere formality however the basis of their existence. With out independence, any reform is an imitation. Independence permits anti-corruption our bodies to behave as watchdogs relatively than as extensions of the manager department. It permits investigations that contain high-ranking officers and people near political energy. And it ensures public belief that anti-corruption efforts should not political instruments however real mechanisms for safeguarding the general public curiosity.
Additionally it is important to acknowledge that anti-corruption infrastructure performs not solely its core enforcement operate but in addition preventive and academic roles. It investigates root causes, identifies legislative and institutional gaps, and works to eradicate them. It additionally fosters a tradition by which neither petty nor political corruption is tolerated. That is exactly the expertise Ukraine must embrace.
Ukraine has already made vital progress: it has established establishments that meet the very best worldwide requirements, performed aggressive picks with worldwide participation, and adopted specialised anti-corruption procedural laws. The best problem, nevertheless, is preserving these achievements amid political turbulence. Every new initiative to "optimize," "reset," or "reformat" the anti-corruption system locations the nation’s institutional structure in danger. References to overseas expertise are sometimes oversimplified or ignored. But the fact is obvious: no efficient anti-corruption system on the planet has ever functioned with out real independence.
The general public response to makes an attempt to restrict the powers of Nationwide Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Workplace is not any exception. Ukrainians more and more perceive that anti-corruption isn’t a technical matter however a assure of the long run. With out it, there may be no funding, no steady economic system, and no European integration. That’s the reason makes an attempt at political interference in unbiased establishments provoke resistance relatively than apathy.
One can communicate endlessly about Ukraine’s "personal path," the particularities of its society, or the difficulties of the transition interval. However the essence doesn’t change: an unbiased anti-corruption system isn’t an exterior obligation – it’s an inner necessity. It’s the institutional spine of a state constructed on belief. If we really aspire to stay in a rustic the place authorities is accountable, enterprise is sincere, and guidelines are the identical for everybody, then now’s the time to prioritize precept over comfort.
Firefighters extinguishing the hearth. Photograph: Kharkiv Oblast Navy Administration 
Firefighters extinguishing the hearth. Photograph: Kharkiv Oblast Navy Administration 
Firefighters receiving medical help. Photograph: Kharkiv Oblast Navy Administration 
Firefighters extinguishing the hearth. Photograph: Kharkiv Oblast Navy Administration 