Semen Kryvonos came to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) with the aura of a director from Bankova Street, whom Hizo Uhlava led through the competition by the hand. Already at that time, having placed his bet on someone else, and not someone from the NABU, the first deputy director of NABU lost the support of part of the team. "There may be sabotage by dubious teams, and documentation of illegal instructions from managers with public disclosure. The most extreme option is that everyone gets together and resigns in protest. But it is worth noting that this scenario is possible only in the event of a critical situation and pressure," our interlocutors in the NABU predicted the possible development of events after the end of the term of the first director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk. In the event that the Bureau begins to break from the inside after the competition.
But everything that happened later exceeded the boldest forecasts. Semen Kryvonos, being simply a "follower" after the scandal with the leaks of information from the NABU to Bankova Street, nevertheless fired the "leader", namely Hizo Uhlava. It was the long-term first deputy director of the NABU, who was 100% trusted not only by the first director of the NABU, but also by international partners, who was under suspicion of collaborating with the office of the President of Ukraine. Thus, a criminal case was opened on the leaks to the NABU. In the institution, which was formed from below, built-in anti-corruption fuses worked. And its director de jure got a chance to become the leader de facto.
Having fired Hizo Uhlava after the conclusions of the disciplinary commission about the pressure on the whistleblower detectives, Semen Kryvonos was able to maintain balance on slippery ice and get out of a difficult situation. However, the negative repercussions from the incident continue to affect him. The director of the NABU faces many challenges, starting from restoring trust in the team, which was finally left by one of the detectives who wrote a report on leaks of information in the case of the irreplaceable consultant of the Office of the President of Ukraine Yuryi Holyk, and ending with global challenges for the institution as a whole. Semen Kryvonos will have to defend the independence of the NABU, including the creation of its own expert service and the right, together with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), to have access to the register of criminal cases without the help of the Prosecutor General, who blocks the name of any people's deputy.
In addition, it is worth noting that Semen Kryvonos also faces the task of building the organizational structure of the NABU in such a way as to protect hundreds of criminal cases that the NABU is currently investigating from leaks. And it is also necessary to prevent anyone within the Bureau from having unlimited powers in one hand, which were concentrated in the former first deputy of the NABU Hizo Uhlava, who is fighting in court for the right to return to the NABU.
In the first part of the interview, we talked about how Semen Kryvonos, having withstood the perfect storm, intends to become a strong director of the key institution of the anti-corruption bloc, what lessons he learned from the crisis and whether he really understands where he will lead the NABU.
— Semen Yuryevich, it turns out that Hizo Uhlava's lawsuit on the illegality of his dismissal from the post of First Deputy Director of the NABU is in the Kyiv District Administrative Court. The judge has already requested all the documents of the disciplinary commission. Can Hizo Uhlava return?
— I admit different scenarios, but the NABU legal team is ready for any of them. We have a clear and understandable legal position. The disciplinary investigation was conducted in accordance with the procedure. I am absolutely confident in all the evidence received. Therefore, both the conclusion of the disciplinary commission and my subsequent decision to dismiss him were based exclusively on legislative norms.
If the court of first instance nevertheless satisfies the claim of the former first deputy, then we will appeal the decision in the appellate court. We intend to use all existing legal mechanisms to protect our legal position.
— How do you assess the position of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), where Hizo Uhlava also filed a statement as a whistleblower, insisting that you have a conflict of interest and that you violated anti-corruption legislation by firing him? The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is actively monitoring the situation, relying on an unauthorized recording of your conversation with Hizo Uhlava, which he provided to the disciplinary commission. In this recording, you allegedly say that you consider Hizo Uhlava innocent, but since you are under a lot of pressure from anti-corruption public organizations and internationalists, you will be forced to fire him.
— Firstly, I do not want to comment on some unclear recordings, made by an unknown person, under unclear circumstances and on unclear grounds. And, secondly, to draw a line under this conversation. The very fact of even a hypothetical possibility that the first deputy director of the NABU or any other employee of the NABU could in principle record a colleague disgusts me... frankly, on a physical level.
— This is true for you, but not for the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) Viktor Pavlushchik, on whose orders employees of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) continue to interrogate detectives of the NABU with great enthusiasm.
— I regard what is happening exclusively as the actions of the institution, and not of specific individuals, including the head. In addition, it is worth noting that the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is a separate anti-corruption structure, which has its own procedure prescribed by law. The Agency's specialists have started the monitoring process, they know how and on what basis to conduct it. In addition, it is worth noting that the institution must do its job in any case and give its conclusion, since a decision was made to take the case for consideration. Another question is whether the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) had grounds for this? Do the representatives of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) strictly adhere to the procedure and legislation? The question arises: Can Hizo Uhlava receive the status of a whistleblower at all if he filed a statement about the conflict of interests of the head only after the internal investigation was completed, and not before? However, it would be incorrect to give your answers and evaluate the work of colleagues in the anti-corruption bloc, being the head of another institution. This would be especially inappropriate at a time when there is no final decision.
With regard to detectives. I do not interfere in the process and do not ask employees of the NABU what they talk about in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) when they are invited to meetings. But I know for sure that during the internal and disciplinary investigations, all the facts of pressure from the first deputy were objectively assessed. Quite a few employees testified on this matter. And, in my opinion, the facts recorded in the case were enough to evaluate them. However, in this situation, there is only one thing to worry about: the decision that will be made by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) must be legal. This is very important for both institutions and their further interaction.
— Do you want to say that this is a clear marker of the independence of the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP)? By the way, this is the second one, after the Agency found no violations in the declaration of the owner of elite real estate, the head of the cybersecurity department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) Ilia Vytiuk.
— Strict adherence to procedure and the law, which is based on evidence, is a marker for any institution and any manager. As for the head of the cybersecurity department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), of the NABU has its own path and its own criminal proceedings, within the framework of which we are moving. Methods and forms of proof are our job, and they are enough without the conclusions of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP).
But since the Agency is currently checking the conflict of interest in my actions within the framework of the statement of the former first deputy of the NABU, I can say for sure that there was none and could not be one. I have no private interest. I am the head of the institution, empowered to appoint an internal investigation, to agree or disagree with the findings of the disciplinary commission, in order to make my own decision on the degree of disciplinary action. I hire people and I fire them. And in this case, I exercised my powers as a director.
— In parallel with the disciplinary investigation, a criminal case was opened on leaks of information to the NABU, which is being conducted by of the NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) At what stage is the investigation? To what extent can its results be affected by the fact that you stopped participating in the procedure and only two weeks later informed the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) about the detective's report on possible leaks of information in the Golik-Reznichenko case and that the first deputy Hizo Uhlava could be involved in them? And why, actually, did this happen?
— Firstly, I cannot comment on the assumption that I acted incorrectly if there is a pre-trial investigation. Secondly, the memo came to me on April 24, two days before the weekend. In addition, on the 29th I had another important conversation related to this memo. And on the 30th the information was transferred to the Internal Control Department of the NABU. Everything that happened beyond the submission of the memo is part of the pre-trial investigation, the circumstances of which I cannot disclose at this time.
— If evidence of Hizo Uhlava's involvement in leaking information is collected during this investigation, will the case be removed from the jurisdiction of the NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and transferred to the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI)?
— If specifically, under Article 387 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, concerning the disclosure of operational investigative activity data, then yes. However, it should be noted that the decision on jurisdiction is made by the prosecutor.
— How did it happen that Hizo Uhlava found out about what was happening before the representatives of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO)? After all, his pressure on the detectives who filed memos about leaking information began before your appeal to the anti-corruption prosecutor's office on May 9 and the public disclosure of this story. According to our information, there was a meeting of the staff of the NABU, where Hizo Uhlava mentioned the presence of "some" tapes and called "not to believe in the intrigues of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO)". Meanwhile, perhaps, together with Berkadze, he was cleaning phones and coming up with a version about the agent of the NABU on Bankova Street.
— My reaction to the information about the pressure on the whistleblower was immediate. Already on May 28, the detective put the report on the table, and I began an internal investigation. This is the first. Second: the answer to the question, namely from whom, what exactly and when did Hizo Uhlava find out, all this information will be provided by the investigation. But now it is worth noting that there is an absolutely clear fact: the first deputy director of the NABU Hizo Uhlava was fired not for the fact of leaks of information, but for the fact of his reaction and behavior to the notification of his possible involvement in systemic leaks of information. This was not about leadership, not about the ethical standards of the NABU.
— Was there only one report about pressure?
— No. During the internal investigation, there were other statements from employees of the team, for which proceedings were also appointed. Some of them are almost finished.
In addition, not all of them concern leaks of information, but indirectly their context is the same.
— This story was taken to heart by a very large number of people. And it is not only about you, Semen Yuryevich, but also about the representatives of the NABU as a whole: right now, the healthy foundations that were laid are being cemented. It is thanks to the team of the NABU that the institution's protection system worked. I understand how difficult this is, but did you immediately respond to the signal as a leader? Did you immediately took the side of the detectives or was it a difficult choice given your authority, reputation, connections and complete trust in Hizo Uhlava?
— Let's look at the end of the story. It turns out that the NABU created a precedent in the entire law enforcement system. Which is actually why the NABU was created. I am, so to speak, a pioneer leader. And as a director, in strict accordance with the law, I appointed an internal investigation, then made a number of decisions based on the facts and sided with the team. And what and at what moment I experienced, what I felt, I do not want to comment. The result is important. We have become stronger.
— But did something happen to you while you were on your way to this result?
— I grew old (laughs). But seriously, many conclusions have been made. Many conversations with the team took place. In addition, it is worth noting that many deep systemic things can grow out of this. For example, we asked for support from our colleagues from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC). As a result, the NABU has already started working with Wim Vandekerckhove, a leading international expert in the field of whistleblower protection standardization and the direct developer of the information management system (ISO 37002:2021 Whistleblowing management systems – Guidelines).
Partners are already analyzing all our internal procedures and documents. Namely, they pay special attention to how we protect whistleblowers, how such activity is stimulated, how it is encouraged. It is very important here that the signal should come from the management. And I believe that this crisis has shown that we succeeded. That is, despite the mistakes made, we reacted.
— However, one of the whistleblowing detectives still left. And this is also a signal.
— He went into a serious international project. You should probably ask him what his decision was based on. But overall, when the official investigation began, I don't think there were any signals from my side that I was not interested in protecting him and bringing the investigation to an end. The second detective stayed. The team is united.
— Do the people of Hizo Uhlava pose a threat to you?
— There are people from the NABU here, there are no people from Hizo Uhlava here.
— It's beautiful, but somehow short-sighted. Since the foundation of the NABU, the D-2 unit (the Second Main Special Unit of Detectives) has existed separately from other units and has always been directly subordinate to Hizo Uhlava. Along with their official work, detectives led by Borys Yndychenko carried out a lot of personal instructions from the first deputy. Against the background of leaks of information and unauthorized recordings, the operational and technical department also raises questions. Isn't the current situation a reason to restore order?
— All units of the NABU performed the functions and tasks of the NABU, including D-2 (the Second Main Special Detective Unit), which employs the same detectives who perform extremely complex tasks and, without exaggeration, risk their lives. This unit has been responsible for the "amber case" since 2017. In addition, this unit was also involved in exposing a people's deputy taking a bribe of 270 thousand dollars, exposing a top official of the State Migration Service of Ukraine for issuing passports to foreigners, exposing a people's deputy taking a bribe for making changes to legislation (the so-called case of additional privileges and bonuses) and many others, and, finally, the case of the former head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
This is the first time I hear about leaks of information and unauthorized recordings of the operational and technical department.
— Are there any official investigations being conducted against the persons involved in the case of information leaks? And since the activities of D-2 (the Second Main Special Detective Unit) are secret, are there any mechanisms for checking their work and are similar events planned?
— I will repeat and emphasize once again: a pre-trial investigation is underway into the leaks of information. The D-2 institution (the Second Main Special Detective Unit), like the entire institution of the NABU, has its own rules, including internal audit tools. But it is also worth noting that any control is subject to improvement, and we are currently actively working on this, and are also waiting for the audit findings.
— What was the main criterion you were guided by when you appointed Denys Hiulmahomedov as the first deputy? How are you going to make the NABU stronger institutionally? Will the approaches to the changed management structure be revised?
— As for the first deputy, it was essential for me that it was a person from the NABU with experience as both a detective and a unit manager.
— Will he administratively coordinate the activities of the detective units or give instructions, like Hizo Uhlava? Do you intend to return to the format of the Main Detective Unit with one leader who carried out procedural management of all detective units and was an independent buffer between the procedural and administrative parts of the NABU?
— When carrying out the restructuring, we relied on the prescribed recommendations of the technical audit. This is, firstly. Secondly, it is worth noting that the heads of the four main detective units report to the first deputy exclusively administratively, but not procedurally. Today, under my order, the first deputy coordinates the four main detective units, the criminal analysis and financial investigation department, the department of organizational and analytical support and strategic development. The remaining units, including the operational and technical department and special operations, are not coordinated by the first deputy.
The powers of the first deputy are essentially part of the delegated powers of the director. And the first deputy has never had procedural functions. And he has never had more power than the director. In the legal sense.
— The key here is in the legal sense. Therefore, the already published quote from our source in the NABU is appropriate here: “There really is no legal mechanism that would oblige the hypothetical Kaluzhynskyi (former head of the Main Detective Unit of the NABU. — I.V.) to be accountable to Hizo Uhlava at one time. There is only an internal order from the director on Uglava’s supervision. There is only the decision of the hypothetical Kaluzhynskyi himself: I recognize the rules of the game based on trust in the leaders. Unfortunately, within the framework of the new structure, supervision has been reduced to the removal of information by the administrative management. Every week, the heads of the units had to submit information about what the detectives were planning to do at the level of each department and unit. They had to submit this information along with the names of the persons involved and so on. There is no feedback in the NABU now. The management works exclusively on reception.” What has changed with the departure of Hizo Uhlava?
— Firstly, I am absolutely sure that the appointed First Deputy Denys Hiulmahomedov is a qualified ethical leader who will not illegally interfere with the detectives’ activities. On the contrary, he will protect their independence, correctly allocate resources and give me as the director objective signals about what the detectives need in order to increase the effectiveness of investigations. There is a concept of priorities. When, let’s say, 10 criminal cases are being investigated at the same time, a person has very limited resources. Where will the special forces go today, what will the operational and technical department do, where to involve experts from the forensic lab, where there is a queue for digital examinations... All this is an effective coordination of resources in terms of priorities, which is what the First Deputy is doing. In this case, he acts as an administrative manager.
In addition, as for the procedural part, let's start from the main thing that you actually just said: any head of the detective unit (the main one or one of the four) in the understanding of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is the head of the pre-trial investigation body. That is, he is vested with powers clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPU). Only a detective together with the prosecutor decide in a case how much information and to whom to transfer. And if within the framework of the pre-trial investigation, due to objective reasons, someone needs to restrict access to information (including the administrative manager), the detective not only has the authority to do so, but this is his direct responsibility. Coordination of administrative personnel and administrative managers and detectives does not work for any information collection, but for the correct distribution of resources and increasing the efficiency of the pre-trial investigation.
It is worth noting that a detective must comply with the law, and if pressure is exerted on him, he must report this to the Internal Control Department within the framework of the existing procedure. I have repeatedly asked detectives and heads of departments at general meetings: what is wrong with your work, what needs to be changed? Because I was reacting to your publications and source quotes. But objective facts show that after the reorganization, the four main detective departments received not only a higher status, but also more independence. Today, they work effectively and the coordination between them is effective, as is the exchange of information. It seems to me that this is an exaggerated problem.
-— But firstly, it is quite difficult for four heads to simultaneously block the flow of information. Secondly, they still need to somehow exchange information. Someone needs to understand what is happening in each of the departments. Otherwise, there will be chaos. When everyone is running in one direction and interfering with each other. In this context, an example can be given of a situation where one employee plans an operation, another employee intervenes in advance and actually disrupts the operation, which was more important and more effective. And this is not at all an administrative story for the first deputy.
— Speaking about the issue of effective coordination, it is worth noting that in any case, it concerns more than one specific person, even if he is very smart and talented. Even if a person has many outstanding qualities, he cannot keep one and a half thousand criminal cases in mind at the same time. This is a question of the system and rules. How is the information exchange system structured? To what extent is the recording of the actions of the units automated? Do the employees adhere to this system? This is the direction we are working in.
— The indefinite tenure of the first deputy and the head of the Internal Control Department of the NABU – is this about efficiency?
— Are you talking about limiting the term of the first deputy?
— Yes, exactly about this.
— I have heard of such an idea. It needs to be studied. But I think that if such a system is applied, then for all anti-corruption agencies. And for this, the law of our country will have to be changed. In any case, we should wait for the results of the international audit in January, which will record not only the results of the work of the NABU, but also give professional recommendations on where to go next. The commission employs very strong practitioners. Such a roadmap will help us adjust our actions and correctly complete the restructuring of the Bureau. In fact, this will be the first document of this kind in the history of the NABU. Although by law it should have been carried out regularly.
— Well, consider it a good deed that will be counted in your karma. And still clarify whether the rotation of the head of the Internal Control Department of the NABU is necessary if the unit does not have a Coefficient of Effective Action (CEA).
— Here I would be very careful in my assessments. The way the Internal Control Department of the NABU coped with its tasks in the current extraordinary situation can only inspire respect. The detectives worked not only under great stress from the situation itself, but also under enormous pressure from society. And it is worth noting that they coped with the task perfectly.
— Your communication with society and journalists all these months has been quite restrained. It was even too restrained, I would say. You practically did not comment on anything and came into conflict with the anti-corruption committee when you did not come to its meeting.
— The NABU always communicates very restrainedly. Especially in such sensitive topics as pre-trial or official investigation. The representatives of the NABU will behave this way until they receive concrete results. That is why I focused exclusively on the process moving forward. So that all employees involved in the investigation have sufficient resources and independence to effectively carry out their work.
— Were the two sentences in the news explaining the reasons for your decision to dismiss Hizo Uhlava enough for the team to understand your decision as well?
— I spoke with the team after my decision. Of course, both the public and the team are interested in the details. And, probably, in order to draw deeper conclusions, it is necessary to read the materials of the internal investigation and the disciplinary commission. But at the moment they are the subject of legal proceedings. There is some classified information of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), which will subsequently be requested by the court. However, after the end of the process, I will give each employee of the NABU the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the materials in order to draw their own conclusions.
— Have you managed to overcome, let's say, a misunderstanding with the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) Oleksandr Klymenko? After all, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) essentially became the forced initiator of the public component of the case on leaks of information to the NABU.
— The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) is our main partner, and I will do everything possible to ensure that our relations only strengthen. This is extremely important to me. Without coordinated interaction between two strong institutions, there will be no result in the anti-corruption block.
— According to our information, the authorities put a lot of pressure on you in the cases of the head of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMK), whose name is Pavlo Kyrylenko and the Minister of Energy of Ukraine Herman Halushchenko. However, the operations were carried out without any information leaks. Do you feel you have the strength to continue to resist the pressure? Is it possible that the heads of the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Development (SIAUD), meet with their former minister-colleague by chance out of habit. That is, the one who is now the head of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine Oleksii Chernyshov and a person who is involved in the criminal case of the NABU?
—At the time of our meeting with the head of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, he was not yet a defendant. This is, firstly. Secondly, the director of the NABU is a public figure. There are many different people in my office. But this does not mean at all that at this moment the detectives are not doing their job. One minister, whom you know very well and know this story, came to this office several times with initiatives for cooperation between institutions. And what? He received a suspicion of the same status.
And you know, Inna, if you think that these are difficult questions for me, this is not so at all. I don't see any reason why I should sacrifice my independence as a director and harm the institution. Tell me, please, what can I sacrifice under such a burden of responsibility? What can I sacrifice? And who should put so much pressure on you that you give in in front of everyone? I don't understand.
— So, the pressure from the team of the NABU and the fear of losing your reputation outweighed everything? These methods are not the best, but not the worst either, and by the way, they are effective motivators for decisive action by the director of the anti-corruption institution.
— Any team is guided by the leader, which means that they catch all the signals that he gives. Therefore, in this case, there can only be counter movement. Otherwise, there will be nothing left.
— According to our information, Hizo Uhlava negotiated with the office of the President of Ukraine about possible assistance to him in court. One of the main arguments that he offered the office were operational materials about envelopes for people's deputies in parliament. Does only Hizo Uhlava have this information? Or has the NABU opened a specific criminal case on this matter?
— Do you want me to comment on these rumors?
— You may not comment on the "rumors" about Hizo Uhlava's blackmail of the country's top officials, but please answer the question of whether the NABU has materials concerning corruption in the legislative branch of government.
From the editor: Read the continuation of the interview tomorrow, where we will talk about specific criminal cases of the NABU, missing tools for more effective investigations of top corruption, as well as relations with the authorities.