The Prosecutor General’s Office is looking for prosecutors to work in the frontline regions for a surcharge. In particular, it is Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Kharkiv regions. In a blitz interview with Komersant ukrainskyi , the head of the Union of Lawyers of Ukraine and three-time Prosecutor General of Ukraine Svyatoslav Piskun said that the institution of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the prosecutor’s office was deliberately destroyed, the legal status of the prosecutor’s office changed significantly, it lost important constitutional powers related to the supervision of the rule of law in the state, and the image, rating and functions of the prosecutor’s office were sharply narrowed.
We published news that the prosecutor’s office lacks specialists and they are being deployed to the frontline areas using the professional method. What is the work of prosecutors during the war in the frontline areas?
Firstly, the work of a prosecutor differs from the work of any other body in that they have to supervise the observance of laws by all bodies and structures that exist in the state. This is the function of the prosecutor’s office. That is, even if local councils make some illegal decision, the prosecutor is obliged to respond to the decision of this local council. Or the regional council, depending on its level.
As for the frontline zones, there is usually more emphasis on war crimes committed by the Russian Federation, which has started a hot war and open military conflict with Ukraine. And of course, these crimes must be recorded by someone. For this purpose, there is the SBI, and the relevant operational Security Services and NABU. But the prosecutor’s office plays a leading role in this matter, because the prosecutor has the right to procedurally direct the investigation. In other words, he or she actually conducts the investigation in parallel with the bodies that are engaged in it by virtue of the law that prescribes it. That is why the role is important.
Why is there a general lack of prosecutors with so many law schools in Ukraine?
In 2015, the prosecutor’s office was completely undermined when a law was passed that removed it from the Constitution, changed the prosecutor’s office as an independent body of justice and took it away – gave it to the judiciary, placed it… It was separately in the Constitutional Court as a separate constitutional body. Now it has been moved to the judiciary, but not subordinated to the Supreme Court, and it is hovering between an independent body and a judicial body. This is the first thing.
A very big mistake was made. This includes funding, appropriate salaries for employees, and so on. And the most important thing is the status. Does it belong to the judiciary or law enforcement agencies? No, it is neither a judicial body nor a law enforcement body. It was written down as an independent body under the Constitutional Court, but they took it and wrote it down… In general, there was the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, but they took it and wrote down in the Constitution that there is a functioning prosecutor’s office. What prosecutor’s office? Ethiopia’s? Which prosecutor’s office operates on the territory of Ukraine? Not Ukrainian, because there is no word Ukraine. Although it is written in the Ukrainian Constitution.
Can we say that the prestige of the profession is disappearing? How do you assess the work of such bodies as NAPC, NABU, BES, where many former prosecutors also work? Have these structures eroded the prosecutor’s office?
It has already disappeared. Due to the fact that the legal status of the prosecutor’s office has changed significantly, that it has lost important constitutional powers related to the supervision of the rule of law in the state, the image and rating and functions of the prosecutor’s office have been sharply narrowed. That is, it has ceased to protect the rights of citizens with, for example, disabilities, it cannot protect state interests, it is not a party between a citizen and the state, meaning that if, for example, citizens complain about the authorities, they must go to court themselves without a prosecutor. Do you understand what it means for a citizen to go to court today under the judicial system that is currently in place in the country?
In other words, the institution of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the prosecutor’s office was deliberately destroyed. Why deliberately – for the sole purpose of transferring powers to some other bodies, functions and powers that allegedly replaced the prosecutor’s office to fight, for example, crimes in the military sphere, corruption crimes, etc. This is where NABU and SBI began to appear. Although it was needed, it was not in that format.
But the SBI was planned to be like the FBI in the United States, but it didn’t work out as expected. The NABU is a separate body with a separate court, which, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in cassation, has separate powers, and so to speak, it has been built up and left the general legal system of the state. In other words, someone deliberately disrupted the legal system of the state, and it has not been able to come back into balance to this day.
During my time, for example, I resumed the activities of the country’s chief military prosecutor, we created a military prosecutor’s office, we created a special prosecutor’s office to oversee weapons manufacturing companies. There was a separate special prosecutor’s office that worked to ensure compliance with the law so that our property in the defence industry was not stolen. That is, there was a structure that worked effectively.
For some reason, it was deliberately taken and destroyed. I think this was done by those who, due to their political myopia, did not see the prospects for the development of the state of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign state in the world. Because when the role of the constitutional body responsible for overseeing the rule of law is levelled, it is clear that the state is significantly weakened.
As a result, there is no military prosecutor’s office as a separate constitution, no chief military prosecutor, no military court, no tribunal, crimes in the military sphere are growing, and so on… The defence industry is growing. And so we have come to the point where we need to rebuild, not reform, but rebuild the law enforcement system of the state. And I don’t know who will take it on.
Not today, for sure, but when peace comes, the first issue that society will face is the renewal and restructuring of the state’s legal system, because it cannot exist when 300,000 police officers, the Security Service of Ukraine, and almost 1 million people are engaged in law enforcement, and crimes and their number are growing every year. And most importantly, the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions has been drastically reduced. This leads to the reorganisation of society, which is beginning to lose faith in the capabilities of the state.
What period in the history of Ukraine could you call the golden age of the prosecutor’s office? When was it closest to the standards in its work?
I cannot say that it was a golden age. I can say that there were times when the opinion of the Prosecutor General and the Prosecutor’s Office was taken into account. These were 2001, 2000 and probably 2010-2012. Until that time, the opinion of the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s office was taken into account, and I had 90 investigators on particularly important cases under the Prosecutor General who were completely independent of any political influence, they had an independent procedural attitude and position, and they replaced the SBI, NABU and everything else. Every year, 10-15 top corrupt officials were brought to justice and sent to prison. This was the norm and everyone had enough. I don’t understand why all of a sudden it was necessary to change all this.
In general, what are the risks for prosecutors during the war? Do they belong to the same cohort of law enforcement officers that the enemy can hunt for?
Of course, because prosecutors are the bearers of information, they know where, when and how and how many people died during the terrorist acts committed by the Russian Federation, they understand and know how our traitors work, they know where and whom they covered up and who was given the opportunity – despite the fact that they committed acts against the state, but they were not dismissed from their jobs and continued to work as governors, assistants, deputies, pseudo-volunteers… and so on. Prosecutors have information, and of course, just as the authorities do not like them, because they can use the information at any time, so our enemy does not like them, because they know that they bring to justice those who work against the state.
Currently, prosecutors’ business trips to work in the frontline regions must be for at least two months at an additional cost of UAH 30,000 to their basic salary, but they are optional, i.e. not mandatory. Do you think it is possible that such business trips could become mandatory? Because it is unlikely that there are many people from Kyiv or Lviv who would be willing to move and work in a frontline region that is constantly under fire, even for 30,000 extra money? What is the prospect that such instructions could become an obligation?
A business trip involves the forced dispatch of an employee on the basis of what is required by the present and his or her official duty. Prosecutors and any people who have sworn an oath of allegiance to the state of Ukraine must comply with the orders of the Prosecutor General and his deputies and work on a business trip in the place where their official duty directs them. So, in my opinion, the desire here is an unnecessary liberalisation of this process. It should be compensated for somehow, of course, because these are different working conditions. But business trips are a work process.
Apart from you, who else would you call an effective Prosecutor General?
I can’t even call myself an effective Prosecutor General, because if I were effective, I probably wouldn’t be suing the President and getting reinstated every time, and I probably wouldn’t be illegally removed from my position. As for effectiveness, every prosecutor who has worked over the years has not become as effective as I have, even I have not become as effective as the Prosecutor General, which would have significantly reduced the crime rate in the country. It was much lower under my watch, but it was not as good as it should have been.
Author – Iryna Shevchenko