Poroshenko-aligned MPs submit complaint against investigations body

A group of 45 MPs, including those from the European
Solidarity parliamentary faction led by former President Poroshenko, submitted
on Aug. 28 a complaint to the Constitutional Court arguing that certain norms
of the legislation establishing the State Bureau of Investigations (DBR) are
unconstitutional, the pravda.com.ua news site reported. Poroshenko has spent
recent weeks attending numerous sessions of questioning at the DBR offices in
relation to crimes he may have committed as president. On Aug. 13, a Kyiv
district court ruled in favor of the DBR to conduct questioning of Poroshenko
under a polygraph. The former president said he will agree to such questioning
if it’s broadcast live on the Priamiy television network, which he controls.
(One of the investigations, involving tax evasion, concerns Poroshenko’s
purchase of the Priamiy network.)

Poroshenko first appeared for questioning at the DBR
offices on July 25. Since then, the former president has repeatedly stated his
view that DBR investigators are biased and lack objectivity. In an interview
published on the pravda.com.ua news site on July 30, Poroshenko accused DBR
Director Roman Truba of offering information about the criminal investigations
to Andriy Bohdan, the head of the President’s Office, who in turn has leaked
the information to Andriy Portnov, a lawyer and close adviser to former
President Yanukovych. Portnov has filed numerous criminal complaints against
Poroshenko with the DBR since returning to Ukraine in May. The bureau is
investigating 11 criminal cases involving Poroshenko, Truba wrote in his
Telegram channel on July 30. They include alleged forgery, tax evasion and
money laundering, among others.

Recall, the State Bureau of Investigations was
launched in November 2018 after its creation was approved by parliament in
April 2012 as part of the adoption of the criminal procedural code. Its purpose
is to focus exclusively on investigating the criminal activity of high-ranking
officials in Ukraine, including elected officials, law enforcement officers and
judges.

Zenon Zawada: Poroshenko
is clearly nervous about the investigations currently being conducted at the
State Bureau of Investigations. This indicates that he hasn’t been able to
reach any backroom deals with President Volodymyr Zelensky, or his main
campaign sponsor Ihor Kolomoisky, on avoiding criminal prosecution. Kolomoisky
was the oligarch most harshly treated by Poroshenko during his presidency,
making him the target of his alleged “deoligarchization” campaign that, in
fact, didn’t remove any oligarchs from power. But it did remove Kolomoisky from
control of oil producer Ukrnafta and commercial bank Privatbank, among other
assets. Poroshenko understood well the prospect for Kolomoisky’s revenge with
Zelensky’s election, so much so that we believed in the widely discussed
possibility of Poroshenko trying to sabotage the presidential elections to
avoid a loss. We believe that Poroshenko was advised he could reach a backroom
deal with Kolomoisky or Zelensky. Though that hasn’t happened yet, it’s still
possible.

Backroom deals for immunity between presidents had
been the tradition in Ukrainian politics, and whether Poroshenko faces any
court trial will be a strong indicator of Zelensky’s professed commitment to
rule of law and equality under the law. There are a large number of potential
criminal cases against Poroshenko, with much potential for enough evidence
being recovered to produce a conviction. We believe Zelensky needs to prosecute
the former president on at least a few of these charges, particularly on his
alleged ties to corruption in the military, in order to maintain his legitimacy
in the public as a corruption fighter. From Poroshenko’s end, criminal trials
would also provide an opportunity to clear his name of the many corruption allegations
against him made in the mass media. But a show trial won’t be appropriate. A
criminal conviction, even with a slap on the wrists, would send a strong signal
to both the Ukrainian public, and the international community, that rule of law
is possible in Ukraine.