A lawyer highlighted the risks of setting up a specialised expert body for NABU and the SAPO
Commenting on a post by the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office regarding the need to establish a separate expert body, the lawyer pointed out that, in criminal proceedings, any doubt as to whether guilt has been proven must be interpreted in favour of the accused.
According to him, if, following several expert examinations, certain circumstances still cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal does not indicate a failure of the justice system, but rather adherence to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), however, believes that the lack of independent expert examinations in high-profile corruption cases may facilitate the evasion of liability for corruption offences. As an example, the prosecution cited the acquittal of the former deputy head of one of the departments at the ‘South-Western Railway’ regional branch of JSC ‘Ukrzaliznytsia’, handed down by the High Anti-Corruption Court.
At the same time, Semen Khanin is convinced that this situation raises another issue: if three expert reports, carried out by different state experts, produced differing results, this does not indicate a lack of independent expert assessment, but rather the possibility of ambiguous professional interpretations.
“This naturally raises the question: are NABU and the SAPO genuinely seeking independent expert analysis, or an analysis that will always confirm the losses and support the prosecution’s case? After all, an independent expert can either confirm the existence of losses or refute them. If, however, the only ‘correct’ conclusion is one that supports the prosecution’s case, then this is no longer a matter of the independence of the expert assessment, but of seeking the ‘desired’ result,” Khanin wrote in a comment under the SAPO’s post.
As previously reported by ThePublic, the Ethics Council received information from the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office regarding possible instructions given to the head of the selection committee concerning two priority candidates for the post of NABU director. One of them, according to information disclosed during an interview, was the bureau’s current director, Semen Kryvonos.
