Political Points of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform include a weekly expert analysis of the most important processes in Ukraine in areas of constitutionalism, political parties and elections, governance and public administration reform, judiciary, combatting corruption, criminal justice, etc.
If you want to receive expert Points for the last week of the current month every Tuesday by mail, please send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Results of the audit of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine can be used as a basis for the dismissal of A. Sytnyk
1. CPLR expert opinion
The President of Ukraine by his Decree of June 19, included the ex-head of Donetsk military-civilian regional administration Pavlo Zhebrivsky into the External Control Commission for Independent Assessment of the Effectiveness of the NABU. Consequently, all three auditors envisioned by the Law “On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine” (hereinafter – the Law) were defined, and the audit of the NABU will begin in the next few days.
The public fears that the President may use this audit as a tool to dismiss A. Sytnyk from his position of the Director of the NABU.
2. Respective authorities counter-point/argument
3. CPLR assessment of the authorities counter-point
4. Related legislation/instructions which require the authorities act in a certain manner.
In accordance with par. 11, part 4 of Art. 6 of the Law, the Director of the NABU may be dismissed in the event of the conclusion of the Audit Commission on ineffectiveness of the activities of the Bureau and improper performance of duties by its Director.
5. CPLR expert suggestions on how to fix the problem using the legal instruments available in Ukraine.
Dismissal of A. Sytnyk from the position of the Director of the NABU based on the results of such an audit will be in conflict not only with the requirements of the Law, but also with the interests of the main “political players”. Firstly, according to the Law, the audit is conducted annually, and this Commission should hold it for 2016, when the NABU was just “getting on feet”, and its Director was taking all measures to start effective work (the first criminal proceedings of the NABU was registered on December 4, 2015). Secondly, the audit will take place under its incomplete legitimacy, as an administrative suit was filed with the demand to cancel the said Decree of the President due to its non-compliance with the requirements of the Law. Thirdly, there is no other candidate for the position of the Director of the NABU, which would satisfy all the relevant actors of political influence.
Therefore, the External Control Commission should carry out a comprehensive and impartial audit of the said body (exclusively in the context of its activities in 2016), and the President and other representatives of the authorities should stop hampering the normal work of this body.