Anti-corruption system at a crossroads: will the independence of NABU and SAPO be preserved?

On July 23, 2025, Law No. 12414 (formerly Draft Law No. 10043) came into force in Ukraine, amending the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the investigation of crimes during wartime. The document caused a wide public outcry, and the media has already called it “a blow to the independence of NABU and SAPO.” However, formally, these bodies have not been liquidated — we are talking about a redistribution of powers within the existing anti-corruption vertical.

What exactly has changed?

The law expands the powers of the Prosecutor General and provides for:

• the possibility of transferring cases from NABU and SAPO to other bodies, in particular the State Bureau of Investigation or the National Police;
• the right of the Prosecutor General to give written instructions to NABU detectives, which are binding;
• the possibility to change the group of prosecutors in cases, including cases involving top officials;
• restrictions on the role of the NABU director in requesting proceedings — this is now only possible with the consent of the prosecutor.

The law also amends the provisions of part 3 of Article 233 of the CPC, which regulates the procedure for conducting searches. Now:

“An investigator, inquiry officer, or prosecutor has the right to enter a person’s home or other property without a ruling from an investigating judge only in urgent cases related to saving people’s lives, preventing an immediate threat to their health, sexual freedom, or personal safety, or in the immediate pursuit of persons suspected of committing crimes […]”.

A number of lawyers note that these changes contain a legal inaccuracy: there is no explanation as to why the list of articles for which searches are permitted without a court decision has been supplemented. This creates an ambiguous field for interpretation and may lead to abuse.

Why are society and experts outraged?

The key concern is the possibility of political influence on investigations into high-level corruption. NABU and SAPO were created as bodies independent of political leadership, with clear jurisdiction and guarantees of autonomy. According to many experts, the adopted law paves the way for interference by the Prosecutor General’s Office in the work of these institutions, primarily through changes in jurisdiction and control over detectives.

Additional doubts are raised by new provisions on conducting searches without a court order—their vagueness and expanded list of grounds have already been the subject of professional criticism.

Protests have already taken place in Kyiv and other cities. Ukraine’s international partners — in particular, representatives of the European Union, anti-corruption organizations, and human rights defenders — have also expressed their concern. Preserving the independence of the anti-corruption system is one of the key conditions for Ukraine’s European integration.

What next?

The law is already in effect. Some members of parliament and representatives of civil society are preparing an appeal to the Constitutional Court to challenge its provisions. While the Office of the Prosecutor General insists that the changes only improve coordination between agencies in the difficult conditions of war, critics see them as a step back from European standards.

The situation remains in the spotlight of both Ukrainian civil society and the international community. The future of reforms in the areas of justice and anti-corruption will directly depend on how these changes are implemented in practice — and whether they will indeed be a step backward.