Ukraine’s parliament has passed a bill that could drastically weaken the country’s main anti-corruption institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The legislation transfers control over their investigations to the Prosecutor General, a move critics say will erase nearly a decade of institutional progress.

The vote comes amid escalating tensions. On 21 July, Ukrainian authorities conducted over 70 searches targeting NABU employees, citing alleged links to Russian intelligence and illegal cross-border activity. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Prosecutor General’s Office allege some detectives may have betrayed the state.

The charges are serious—treason, corruption, and illicit trade with Russia—but anti-corruption watchdogs, opposition lawmakers, and G7 envoys see a different pattern: a potential campaign to dismantle independent oversight, just as these agencies investigate officials close to the president.

Here’s what’s happening—and why it matters.

SBU’s case against NABU

At the center of the SBU’s case is Ruslan Magamedrasulov, a top NABU detective accused of helping his Russian father sell hemp to Russia’s Republic of Dagestan. He allegedly concealed his father’s citizenship and passed confidential data to Fedir Khrystenko, a fugitive Ukrainian MP with alleged FSB ties.

Authorities claim Khrystenko was running a covert operation to infiltrate NABU. They also accuse him of using his influence within the bureau to help businessmen flee Ukraine.

Dozens of NABU employees were raided. Some cases stemmed not from espionage but old traffic incidents. NABU claims no court-approved warrants were shown. In response, the SBU stated that in cases involving national security and treason, urgent investigative actions may proceed without prior court approval under Ukrainian law.

What’s in the law: The hidden amendments that could gut NABU and SAPO

At the core of today’s parliamentary session is draft law No. 12414, officially focused on procedures for missing persons. But in a last-minute maneuver, controversial amendments were added quietly, targeting Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.

According to MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak, these hidden clauses would:

• Subordinate SAPO prosecutors to the Prosecutor General, not the SAPO head.
• Allow the Prosecutor General to reassign NABU cases at will.
• Remove the legal prohibition on stripping NABU of its investigations.
• Authorize case removals from NABU if it refuses to follow orders.
• Strip SAPO prosecutors of the power to take over cases from other bodies.
• Require NABU’s director to get permission from the Prosecutor General—not SAPO—to claim jurisdiction.
• Transfer dispute resolution on jurisdiction entirely to the Prosecutor General.
• Empower the Prosecutor General to unilaterally close investigations involving top officials.

NABU and SAPO push back

NABU said the recent raids jeopardize ongoing corruption probes, potentially leaking classified strategies and exposing undercover operations. SAPO warned the SBU’s access could derail key investigations.

Director Semen Kryvonos returned from the UK early to manage the fallout. Internal probes are underway, and NABU says force was used against one detective without resistance.

“The head of SAPO would become a nominal figure, and NABU would lose its independence, effectively becoming a subdivision of the Prosecutor General’s Office,” NABU and SAPO wrote in a joint statement. “The anti-corruption infrastructure built since 2015 will be dismantled.”

Civil society responds

The Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) described the mass searches in NABU as “a continuation of pressure and an attempt to destroy independent institutions.”

They emphasized that NABU and SAPO had recently launched investigations reaching deep into the president’s circle. One case targets former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov. Another probe involves Volodymyr Myndich, President Zelenskyy’s business partner, and the arrest of Myndich’s relative, which drew significant media attention.

“This is the dismantling of independent anti-corruption institutions to prevent them from creating problems by investigating corruption involving the president’s inner circle,” the Anti-Corruption Action Center said.

AntAC and other civic watchdogs warned that Ukraine’s credibility in the fight against corruption could be at serious risk if these moves go unchallenged.

International reaction

The G7 Ambassadors voiced unease, stating:

“We are closely following developments at NABU. We met with its leadership and have serious concerns.”

Western partners have poured billions into Ukraine’s reforms. Undermining anti-corruption efforts could endanger foreign aid, trust, and EU accession goals.

Inside the SBU’s counterclaims

The SBU doubled down, revealing they seized classified NABU materials—including surveillance logs and personnel files—from Khrystenko’s home. They also accused former detective Timur Arshavin of fleeing Ukraine illegally.

Meanwhile, a senior SBU official was himself charged by NABU with demanding a $300,000 bribe to protect a suspect from prosecution. The officer and two partners allegedly accepted $72,000 before charges were filed.

These revelations further complicate the narrative: is this justice—or selective targeting?

Expert Insight: proceed with caution

Former SBU Deputy Head Victor Yahun said the claims against NABU may be legitimate—but stressed the importance of due process.

“We must let the SBU present evidence in court,” he told Svoboda.Live. “Anyone can point to Russia. What matters is whether the accused were acting on official orders from Russian intelligence.”

If not, he warned, the entire case could collapse.

A System already under pressure

Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture includes more than just NABU and SAPO. Several other bodies, including the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), and the Bureau of Economic Security (BES), also play roles—often with overlapping mandates and varying degrees of political exposure.

Still, NABU and SAPO have received the most international attention and support due to their intended independence.

While hailed as reform milestones, Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies are a matter of debate. In nearly a decade of their existence, only a few top-level officials have ended up behind bars. But experts say that’s not justification for dismantling the institutions—especially now.

Political commentator Yuriy Bohdanov described NABU as “a structurally flawed and strategically useless institution that does nothing to address systemic corruption.” Yet even he admitted: “Taking it down like this is outright harmful.”

With elections on hold, political opposition muted, and power increasingly centralized, weakening NABU and SAPO could accelerate the erosion of institutional independence.

The bigger picture

Ukrainian investigative reporters and MPs like Yaroslav Zhelezniak warn that this is about more than one case. They say the moves against NABU are part of a broader effort to consolidate power.

“NABU got too close to the president’s circle,” Zhelezniak said. “Now they’re being punished.”

If Parliament passes the new law today, it would effectively hand oversight of all corruption cases to the Prosecutor General—an office with a history of political influence.

Why it matters

Ukraine is currently navigating a state of prolonged war with Russia, suspended elections, and growing executive control. In this environment, meaningful democratic checks and balances are difficult to maintain. While rooting out national security threats is essential, doing so by weakening oversight institutions raises concerns about long-term governance.

NABU and SAPO are far from perfect. Yet many civil society actors argue that dismantling their independence now risks losing the limited accountability framework that still exists.

What happens next will determine whether Ukraine can maintain some degree of institutional independence while under existential threat—or whether the war will also mean the quiet consolidation of unchecked power. What happens next may shape Ukraine’s institutional future—whether it retains some independence or slides further toward centralized power.