Prosecutor general pursuing treason cases against candidates

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine announced
on Feb. 5 it has opened a criminal case against Viktor Medvedchuk, the
political council chair of the Opposition Platform For Life party, for alleged
state treason and separatism. Explaining the crime, spokeswoman Larysa Sarhan
said that during the Jan. 29 congress of the Russian-oriented party, Medvedchuk
called for creating an autonomous region of Donbas with its own parliament and
government, as well as amending the Constitution to preserve that status. Such
calls for an autonomous region support Russia’s subversion of Ukrainian
statehood, Sarhan said. “In the current case, the declared calls for changes to
the border of Ukraine’s territory simultaneously offers aid to the Russian
Federation in conducting subversive activity against Ukraine, as well as
supports its aggressive activity and separatist sentiments,” she said. The case
was opened in response to a claim filed by Andriy Teteruk, a Donbas war veteran
and MP with the People’s Front party.

In response to the criminal case, Medvedchuk told the
112 television network that his proposals for peace in Donbas don’t violate any
laws of Ukraine and fully conform with the Minsk Accords. He accused the
prosecutor general of  “settling political scores” with its accusations.
The Ukrainian Choice civic organization – founded by Medvedchuk – issued a
statement the same evening alleging that a constitutional amendment for Donbas
autonomy doesn’t mean turning Ukraine into a federation. All such accusations are
baseless insinuations by those who don’t understand the principles of state
polity and constitutional norms, the statement said.

Addressing a parliamentary committee on Feb. 4, Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko said prosecutors are investigating whether to charge
presidential candidate and former Defense Minister, Anatoliy Grytsenko, along
with others who served in the post, with state treason for their alleged role
in undermining national defenses with illegal arms operations during their
tenure. When referring to Grytsenko, Lutsenko said that “the biggest selloff of
the Ukrainian army’s military hardware” began during his tenure as defense
minister in February 2005-December 2007. Mass layoffs occurred in the army, its
property was sold off and its military preparedness was harmed during this
period, he alleged.

In response, Grytsenko said Lutsenko was “settling
scores” with political opponents with his accusations of corruption.
Furthermore, the Prosecutor General’s Office and State Bureau of Investigations
have confirmed in the past that he had not violated any laws during his tenure
as defense minister, Grytsenko said.

Zenon Zawada: In pursuing
treason cases against leading political figures, the president’s team is
demonstrating that not only won’t pull any punches during this election
campaign, but it is eager to use instruments such as criminal cases to
intimidate and demonize opponents before the electorate. These statements are
meant as political theatre as neither Medvedchuk nor Grytsenko will ever face
criminal charges and prosecution for state treason. It’s particularly
theatrical to see a criminal case against Medvedchuk for treason after he was
confirmed to have been in frequent and tacit negotiations with the president,
both at his office and his private mansion. This is part of ample evidence that
Poroshenko has a tacit political-business alliance
with the Opposition Platform party led by Medvedchuk and its head, Yuriy Boyko.
In exchange for the business alliance, we believe they have agreed to assume
the role of Poroshenko’s political sparring partners, taking and deflecting
attacks for their Russian-oriented position.

We stated a week ago that Medvedchuk’s proposal for autonomy doesn’t conform with the
Minsk Accords. To clarify that statement, it’s
worth considering that Medvedchuk is accurate when arguing that his radical
version for Donbas autonomy doesn’t violate any clause of the Minsk Accords,
which doesn’t establish a clear outline of what autonomy should look like. The
two Minsk agreements don’t even mention autonomy, instead referring to
Ukraine’s “decentralization” for “local self-governance” that gives the Donbas
districts “special status.” In our view, while such radical proposals don’t
conflict with the clauses of the Minsk Accords, they don’t conform with their
aim and spirit, which is to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity. Medvedchuk’s plan for autonomy merely fulfills Russian President
Putin’s goal of gradually dismantling Ukrainian statehood.