Anti-corruption strategy contains constitutional risks: contradictions found in all three bills in the Verkhovna Rada

The formation of the state anti-corruption policy for 2026–2030 has entered an active phase of parliamentary struggle. As of the end of May 2026, three versions of the Anti-corruption Strategy have already been registered in the Verkhovna Rada: the main № 15230, the government № 15230-1, and the alternative № 15230-2. Each claims to be the foundational document that will determine Ukraine's direction towards the EU and NATO.

The adoption of the Anti-corruption Strategy for 2026–2030 is an international obligation of Ukraine within the framework of the Ukraine Facility and the Roadmap in the field of the rule of law. However, during consideration in the relevant committees, it turned out that the basic draft developed by the NACP and its alternatives contain a number of contradictory provisions. The State Regulatory Service questions even the form of the document itself, indicating that a law consisting of problem descriptions is not a normative legal act in the classical sense.

The main bill №15230 was developed based on the NACP's work. It provides for the digitalization of personnel procedures, strengthening the principles of meritocracy, and improving the mechanisms for selecting the management of the SBI.

The government bill №15230-1 proposes a more restrained approach to reform. In particular, it envisages reducing the role of international experts in the competitive procedures for selecting the leadership of the SBI, leaving more powers to national institutions.

The alternative bill №15230-2 is the most extensive in terms of proposed changes. Its authors propose a de facto reboot of the State Bureau of Investigations, justifying the need for such steps, among other things, by the public resonance around the so-called "Mindich tapes." In addition, the document provides for a significant expansion of the institutional independence of the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office.

Risks of the "decisive vote" of international experts

The key stumbling block is the participation of foreigners in the competition commissions of the SBI, National Police, and judicial governance bodies.

The main project submitted by the relevant committee provides for the involvement of independent international experts with a decisive vote in the selection of members of the judicial governance bodies of the High Council of Justice and the heads of law enforcement agencies of the SBI and National Police. The alternative parliamentary project also supports this standard. Deputies propose granting international experts a decisive vote in the selection of the SBI Director and the head of the National Police as a safeguard against appointing loyal rather than professional personnel.

However, Verkhovna Rada experts emphasize that granting foreign experts a decisive vote does not comply with Article 131 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as they are not included in the list of entities that form the High Council of Justice.

Such a mechanism requires constitutional amendments, which are impossible under martial law. This may be considered a limitation of state sovereignty.

Moreover, the issue of the participation of international experts in the formation of state authorities with a decisive vote remains a subject of constitutional dispute.

Currently, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is considering a constitutional submission by 56 people's deputies who request verification of the constitutionality of several provisions of laws regulating the activities of key state institutions. In particular, these concern laws regarding the High Council of Justice, High Qualification Commission of Judges, High Anti-corruption Court, NABU, NACP, SACPO, State Bureau of Investigations, Accounting Chamber, as well as certain provisions of the Customs Code.

The subject of constitutional control includes, in particular, mechanisms that provide for the participation of international experts in competition commissions with the right of decisive vote during the selection of leadership or members of certain state bodies.

Therefore, the issue of the role of international experts, which is also raised in the bills, may depend not only on the parliament's decision but also on the future conclusion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The government bill № 15230-1 takes a different position — it agrees to involve experts but limits their influence, not granting them a decisive vote in the selection of the SBI leadership.

Change in the model of independence of the SBI and SAP

Bill № 15230-2 also provides significant changes in the organization of the work of the State Bureau of Investigations and the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office.

Regarding the SBI, the document proposes introducing a system of independent external audit of the Bureau's activities. Based on the results of such an audit, the Verkhovna Rada will be able to consider the issue of dismissing the SBI director. At the same time, Verkhovna Rada experts believe that the proposed mechanism does not comply with the current Law "On the State Bureau of Investigations" and effectively creates an alternative model of control over the agency's activities.

Regarding the SACPO, the bill proposes granting the head of the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office the right to independently initiate criminal proceedings against people's deputies without the consent of the Prosecutor General.

According to parliamentary administration experts, such a model may violate the principle of unity of the prosecution system, as it effectively creates an autonomous mechanism for making procedural decisions within one body. This may lead to the formation of a kind of "prosecutor's office within the prosecutor's office," which requires additional legislative justification.

Imaginary conflict of interest

The introduction of the concept of "imaginary conflict of interest" and granting the NACP exclusive competence to interpret conflicts in judges is provided for in the main draft Law № 15230 "On the Principles of State Anti-corruption Policy for 2026–2030."

The draft proposes to enshrine the concept of a conflict that arises when an outside observer gets the impression that the private interests of an official may influence his decision, although in reality such influence does not occur.

The strategy proposes the term but does not provide an algorithm of actions for the official or his supervisor in case such an "impression" is detected. This makes the norm formal and creates risks for officials.

The introduction of a third type of conflict (alongside real and potential) in a situation where basic concepts are not yet fully understood by subjects will only increase legal uncertainty. In addition, the draft lacks a general definition of the term conflict of interest as a basic concept.

Interference in the judicial branch

Project № 15230 proposes to enshrine at the legislative level the exclusive competence of the NACP to provide general explanations on conflict of interest issues, including for judges during the administration of justice.

Verkhovna Rada lawyers consider this a direct interference of the executive branch in the activities of the judicial branch and a violation of the guarantee of judicial independence. According to Article 6 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state power is exercised on the basis of its separation.

Currently, explanations regarding conflicts of interest for judges are provided by the Council of Judges of Ukraine as the highest body of judicial self-government, which complies with the current Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges."

Establishing exclusive competence without clarifying that NACP explanations are only of a recommendatory nature creates a threat that they will become mandatory rules for administering justice, violations of which may lead to judges being held accountable.

Which strategy requires the most revision?

The most revision is required for the parliamentary bill № 15230-2 due to the creation of legal collisions with the SBI law and the main bill № 15230 regarding the NACP's powers over judges.

The issue of the participation of foreign experts must be aligned with the Basic Law; otherwise, the Strategy risks being annulled by the Constitutional Court. It is necessary to abandon non-legal terms ("meritocracy," "public servants") and duplication of existing legal norms.

Contrary to the Verkhovna Rada Regulations, financial and economic justifications have not been added to the bills, although they require additional budget expenditures.

What next?

The Verkhovna Rada must find a compromise version that satisfies the EU's requirements regarding the independence of anti-corruption bodies without violating the architecture of Ukraine's state power. The next step will be coordinating the text in the relevant committee taking into account the remarks of the State Regulatory Service.

Read more about the risks of each strategy in the following materials of the Judicial and Legal Newspaper.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.