Strained Trust: Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Reform, Pro-Russian Purges, and the Battle for Institutional Independence

Ukraine’s fight against corruption is as central to her national revival as her battle against Russian aggression. Since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, a significant body of institutional architecture has been constructed to confront the country’s long-entrenched culture of kleptocracy. Bodies such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) have become vital symbols of Ukraine’s efforts to build a transparent and democratic state. Yet recent efforts by the Ukrainian government to restructure elements of this architecture—particularly through the controversial proposal to place these anti-corruption bodies under the Office of the Prosecutor General—have generated fierce debate, both domestically and amongst Ukraine’s international partners.

At the heart of the reform is a proposed legislative package introduced in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's national parliament), backed by President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration. The bills seek to centralise oversight of the principal anti-corruption institutions under the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), a move justified by government officials as necessary to “cleanse” these bodies of residual pro-Russian influences—some of which allegedly date back to appointments made prior to 2014 or during the murky post-Maidan transition period. Supporters argue that some officials within NABU and SAPO have operated with opaque loyalties, undermining Ukraine’s legal integrity from within.

Yet the measures sparked immediate public backlash. Civil society groups, transparency watchdogs and ordinary citizens took to the streets in Kyiv and other cities in the spring of 2025, alarmed that these reforms might compromise the very independence that made the anti-corruption bodies credible in the first place. Protesters accused the government of exploiting national security concerns to consolidate political control over judicial processes, particularly in the lead-up to difficult decisions over post-war reconstruction and foreign investment.

Critics argue that by placing NABU and SAPO under the PGO—an institution that has historically been subject to executive influence—the reforms risk turning the fight against corruption into a political tool, rather than a neutral safeguard of the rule of law. While the current Prosecutor General himself, Ruslan Kravchenko, is a presidential appointee (with the approval of the Parliament), NABU and SAPO were established with a degree of insulation from both political and prosecutorial interference, in part due to conditionality for financial support imposed by Ukraine’s Western partners and institutions such as the IMF and European Union.

The controversy is not solely about legal architecture. It reflects a deeper struggle between different visions of Ukraine’s democratic future: one in which executive power is entrusted to pursue swift, security-oriented reforms even at the cost of institutional autonomy; and another in which the rule of law must prevail regardless of the exigencies of war. Critics have noted that the government failed to engage the public transparently before advancing the proposed laws, allowing suspicion and misinformation to flourish. In the current climate of wartime insecurity and civic mobilisation, the government’s failure to explain its motives clearly—or consult adequately with civil society and Ukraine’s international partners—may have done more damage than the benefits the reforms themselves sought to achieve.

Recognising the backlash, senior figures in the presidential administration and the Rada have since sought to walk back or revise the original legislative proposals. Replacement legislation has been floated that would partially restore the institutional autonomy of NABU and SAPO while maintaining enhanced vetting mechanisms and reformed oversight procedures to detect infiltration or undue influence. Details remain scarce, but insiders suggest that a compromise framework is being developed that would allow external monitoring by the Prosecutor General’s Office without direct subordination or command authority.

This dual-track approach—seeking to purge malign influence while preserving independence—has merit, but also presents risks. The advantages of the current strategy include a potential strengthening of institutional loyalty to the state, the closure of long-standing security vulnerabilities, and the signalling of Ukraine’s resolve to confront internal sabotage. It also helps reassure sceptical Ukrainian citizens that corruption in the security and justice sectors will not be tolerated in wartime.

But the disadvantages are weighty. Even temporary erosion of anti-corruption bodies’ autonomy undermines public trust and risks reputational damage abroad. Donors and financial institutions remain deeply invested in Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure. Any perception that political influence is creeping into their operation may jeopardise funding or delay integration with the European Union. Moreover this approach sets a precedent: once independence is compromised for any reason—however urgent—it becomes harder to rebuild it later.

What this episode reveals, most of all, is the delicate balance Ukraine must strike between wartime necessity and democratic integrity. Fighting corruption and resisting Russian subversion are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they are often the same battle. But the manner in which these reforms are executed matters greatly. Poor communication, rushed legislation, and dismissive treatment of public dissent threaten to alienate the very civil society actors who have carried Ukraine through her most trying moments.

In the final analysis, the success of Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms will depend not only on their legal outcomes, but likewise upon their political legitimacy. If the Zelensky administration hopes to maintain the trust of its citizens and allies, it must ensure that every step taken in the name of security is rooted in transparency, grounded in consultation, and framed by the unshakable principle that justice in Ukraine must remain independent, impartial, and incorruptible—even in war.