Recent allegations surrounding the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office have reignited calls for significant reforms within the institution. Director of the Institute for World Politics, Yevhen Magda, emphasized that the appointment of a new Prosecutor General will not mitigate the entrenched issues unless systemic changes are enacted.
Magda pointed to the “Carthage” case as a stark illustration of the deep-rooted crisis within the Prosecutor’s Office, which he claims has been utilized as a weapon to dismantle political adversaries. He remarked that the office has historically operated as a punitive mechanism for those deemed enemies of the state, often under the directive of the presidency.
He further asserted that the Office of the Prosecutor General played a pivotal role in undermining Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, the NABU and SAP, last summer. The controversial press conference held by former Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko remains vivid in public memory. Only through pressure from civil society and international partners have these anti-corruption entities managed to function effectively.
Magda accused prosecutors of exerting undue influence on local governance, highlighting over 1,500 criminal cases initiated against Kyiv officials, with more than 1,200 searches conducted and over 300 suspicions announced. However, he noted that only four convictions resulted from this extensive legal activity, raising questions about the legitimacy of these cases and suggesting that many were likely fabricated.
He explained that the objective behind these actions was to disrupt the Kyiv City Administration’s operations and potentially facilitate illicit financial gain for certain individuals. The formula for success, according to Magda, involved attacking anti-corruption entities and opposition figures such as Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, while simultaneously profiting from corrupt practices.
Magda concluded that merely appointing a new prosecutor within the current framework will not effect change. He called for reforms to the prosecutor’s office, including the competitive selection of institutional leaders with the involvement of independent experts. He acknowledged that while this is not a panacea, the experiences of NABU, SAP, and the new leadership at the Bureau of Economic Security reveal that leaders free from dependence on any single political faction enjoy greater autonomy.
He warned that the “Carthage” case must not devolve into another political scandal but should serve as a critical test for Ukraine’s ability to transition from a system reliant on personal appointments to one based on institutional integrity.
