NABU is being restored Trust is lost forever

Ukrainian society has once again witnessed a dramatic twist in anticorruption policy: a legislative attack on the independence of NABU, a strong public response and wave of protests — and, eventually, broad parliamentary support for rolling back the law and restoring the procedural independence of anticorruption agencies. But can trust be regained as quickly as the “repair” law was passed? Unfortunately, the answer is clear — wounds remain, and the sense of irreversible loss of trust only becomes sharper.

A brief overview
In the history of Ukraine’s fight against corruption, July 22–31, 2025, will be remembered as the days that exposed the real state of trust between authorities and society. The decision of the Verkhovna Rada to support the scandalous law №12414, which sharply curtailed the independence of NABU and SAPO, became a fait accompli. The changes effectively turned these bodies into units of the Prosecutor General’s Office, depriving them of the ability to impartially investigate top-level corruption or serve notices of suspicion without the approval of politically appointed figures. The law also granted the Prosecutor General the right to seize high-profile cases, close proceedings against top officials, and directly control the subordinated anticorruption bodies.

Social explosion: the public response
The very next day after the vote, the active part of civil society spoke out: a wave of protests swept Kyiv, Lutsk, Rivne, Odesa, Mykolaiv. International partners joined in — the heads of EU institutions and G7 ambassadors set “red lines,” and the European Commission summoned the government for explanations about developments in anticorruption policy. Activists and experts warned of a return to “arranged” cases and the risk of dismantling the entire anticorruption infrastructure that had been built since 2015.

Rowing back
Under pressure from protests and international isolation, President Volodymyr Zelensky urgently proposed a new bill. On July 31, it was swiftly passed by parliament with 331 votes in favor and no opposition from parliamentary factions. The essence of the document was to annul the amendments that made NABU and SAPO subordinate to the Prosecutor General’s Office, to block the possibility of seizing cases, and to introduce new safeguards: regular polygraph testing for staff and special NABU internal checks for possible collaboration with the enemy.

Is it possible to “roll back” without losses?
On the surface, the reform has been “repaired,” but underlying trust has been seriously undermined. There are several reasons for this:

• A sense of manipulation: the focus was not on protecting the public interest, but on a banal reaction to outside pressure.
• Blurring of clear positions: the authorities first voted for subordinating NABU, then a week later — for restoring its independence.
• Suspicions of “clearing” top-profile cases: experts and politicians fear that during the few days law №12414 was in effect, the most sensitive cases could have been stealthily reassigned, frozen or cleaned up.
• An open signal: the rules of the game can be changed easily for the sake of political expediency.

Trust is not a cryptocurrency: it cannot be restored by a simple rollback
Citizens and the expert community sensed that the state does not value trust as an irreplaceable asset: one step against society — and the system is no longer a guardian, but an arbitrator serving the interests of the political establishment. For Ukrainians this is not just an emotional issue — it is a loss of hope for genuine, responsible anticorruption efforts, where victory is impossible without honest rules.

International context: risks for legitimacy

• Loss of international reputation: the scandalous legislative zigzags cast a shadow not only on the fight against corruption but on the whole European integration strategy, opening the way for freezing or reconsidering support programs.
• Fracturing of social unity: the situation is used for disinformation campaigns, including those with Russian narratives, undermining society’s ability to mobilize in a critical moment.

Conclusions: a long rebuilding ahead
The main result is a serious trust deficit. The legislative maneuver demonstrates: anticorruption “tools” remain the subject of political deals — this applies both to big business and to the ordinary citizen.
A sense of impunity remains: the system can still cover up certain cases, perhaps not as massively as before 2014, but the effectiveness of anticorruption institutions is again in doubt.
A new mission for society is not only to demand independent investigations, but to monitor the quality of legislation at every stage, as even short-term “rollbacks” can cause irreparable reputational damage.

Conclusion
This story is not just a legal precedent or a political episode. It is yet another illustration: trust is not a game. This time, the feeling has been confirmed with fatal accuracy — and even legal rollbacks are unlikely to restore the level of trust that existed before July 2025. What society needs is procedural clarity, predictability, and ethical consistency. Until this is achieved, every new initiative will be under suspicion, and trust will be lost forever.

Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner, Law Firm “WINNER”, PhD in Law.