Attorney General on Billboards: Who and Why Is Selling the Myth of Prosecutor Elections Under the EU Flag
Over the past ten years, Ukraine has become a unique laboratory of institutional reforms. It is unlikely that there is another European country that has undergone such a large-scale experiment in restructuring government bodies, the judicial system, and law enforcement institutions in such a short period of time.
In this context, the process of European integration has become not only a stimulus for reforms but also a convenient cover for promoting dubious legislative experiments. In socio-political discussions, increasingly frequent are the unequivocal calls of lobbyists: "This is required by the European Union, otherwise Ukraine will not be able to join the EU." This phrase has turned into a universal tool of blackmail, opening doors for the most radical and sometimes destructive changes to legislation.
The main architects of constant reforms are not European commissioners in Brussels but a very specific network of domestic grant-based non-governmental organizations and associated lobbyists who have never been elected by Ukrainians to represent their interests.
Finding themselves in a situation where, according to various estimates, international partners have allocated over 100 million euros for justice reform in Ukraine in recent years, the grant industry has fallen into its own trap. After years of funding typical directions — developing endless "strategies," codes of ethics, methodological recommendations, and trainings — it has become increasingly difficult for donors and project implementers to demonstrate the need for new large budgets. When standard reforms have been repeatedly implemented, there arises a need to artificially create new changes.
It was in this way that the idea of democratization and decentralization of the prosecutor's office appeared, which has recently been promoted in the public space. This concerns a radical change in the procedure for appointing the Attorney General — up to the introduction of direct or indirect elections or the creation of overly complex competitive procedures with decisive votes by foreign experts and activists. The competition began to be perceived not as a selection tool but as an independent guarantee of independence. However, the procedure itself does not create independence.
Under the cover of the noble goal — adapting Ukrainian law to the EU legal system — there is an attempt to introduce a destructive tool that will destroy the remnants of a unified centralized system of procedural leadership.
For society, this manipulation will result in the law enforcement system at the local level risking turning into an instrument of local financial-industrial groups that will finance the election campaign of the desired prosecutor. Brussels and European standards require the exact opposite from Ukraine — meritocracy, institutional stability, and depoliticization of criminal justice.
What the European Union Really Requires: Documents Against Myths
If we open the real documents regulating financial aid and Ukraine's integration commitments, we will not find a single word about open competitions, prosecutor elections, or democratization through voting.
Let us refer to the key document — the Plan for the Implementation of the Ukraine Facility Program. According to the reform implementation schedule, Ukraine's commitments regarding the prosecutor's office for 2026 are clearly outlined.
Transparent merit-based selection: the enactment of legislation ensuring transparent and merit-based selection of prosecutors for leadership positions.
Implementation of clear criteria for professional competence, integrity, and ethics.
Improvement of procedures for holding prosecutors accountable disciplinarily and strengthening the institutional capacity of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (QDCP).
No European document — neither PACE Resolution No. 1755 nor the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers Recommendation "On the Role of the Prosecutor in the Criminal Justice System" — proposes electing prosecutors in general elections. On the contrary, European standards emphasize that the state must guarantee that the selection and promotion of prosecutors are carried out based on objective criteria, including experience and qualifications.
Thus, Brussels speaks of institutional stability, while local lobbyists try to impose political instability through electoral mechanisms.
Author: Volodymyr Pravo
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
