“Maidanuti” tackled the prosecutor’s office
Natalka Sokolenko’s entry on the “Ukrainian Truth” blog, marking the 100th revised version of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” swiftly affirmed that current reforms shouldn’t be dismantled prematurely until populated with fervent Maidan supporters.
More specifically, a unique group within these activists – the “All-in for Maidan” faction, or simply “Maidanut,” who previously touted non-violent resistance, donning Berkut insignias, providing sandwiches to officers, and urging citizens to block government buildings while flooding Pshonka’s office with derogatory messages. They promptly secured a novel task: to “purge” officials and overhaul the prosecutor’s office, without issuing significant pronouncements concerning our nation’s legal framework.
Axis and Natalka were profoundly disheartened that the Verkhovna Rada had yet to approve the revised Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” implying that the “prosecutor’s office continues to harass” businesses, retains its role as a secret service, and prosecutors remain involved in document seizures, workplace disruptions, and entrepreneur blackmail.
Natalchin’s piece includes additional noteworthy points, which I encourage those interested to explore:
http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/sokolenko/53a31180af958/
Here, I’m struck by the “Maidanuts” narrative and the overt display of labels.
Firstly, Ukraine has already suffered 13 casualties, a fact seemingly unknown to Natalka Sokolenko. I’m uncertain of the term’s precise definition. She’s picked up on something (I suspect, advisedly) and mindlessly echoes it alongside her Maidan associates. We’re essentially discussing those seeking to remove paragraph 5 of Article 121 from the Constitution of Ukraine (i.e., from the Constitution itself, and subsequently from the corresponding law that Natalya advocates for publication), thereby stripping the prosecutor’s office of its duty “to oversee the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms, and compliance with laws by governmental authorities, local self-government bodies, their officials, and service personnel.” These pivotal elements of the prosecutor’s office are branded as “Maidanuti” and deemed impudent, with calls for their removal from the prosecutor’s office:
– maintaining state prosecution in court;
– supervising law observance by bodies engaged in operational-investigative activities, inquiry, and pre-trial investigations;
– supervising law observance during enforcement of court decisions in criminal matters, as well as in the implementation of other coercive measures involving restrictions on citizens’ personal freedom;
– representing citizen or state interests in court, as prescribed by law.
Essentially, the prosecutor’s office would lose oversight of the police, security forces, and SBU, including covert operations and detention facilities. This aligns with Andriy Portnov’s long-held aim: to prevent the prosecutor’s office from scrutinizing bureaucratic misconduct within the government, overseeing ministries and departments, and limiting the potential for criminalizing corruption within strengthened control bodies.
I’ll cut to the chase. Ukraine has a Ministry of Youth and Sports, currently overseen by Dmitro Bulatov, notoriously associated with the “Al Capone” gangster club. Given Bulatov’s dedication to embezzling state funds, imposing undue taxes on athletes, and fostering various corrupt “schemes,” it’s necessary to state that he’s the first minister in Ukrainian history who consistently defies court rulings and disregards the law.
Bulatov could be promptly “locked up” with the General Prosecutor’s Office’s assistance, as the prosecutor’s office is tasked with overseeing anti-government officials under the Law of Ukraine “On Citizen Appeals.” For citizens, documents from the Ministry of Youth and Sports are ignored, even after submitting them appropriately to the Prosecutor General’s Office – the GPU would be obligated to verify the assertions in the facts, gather explanations from relevant Ministry of Youth and Sports officials, and upon confirming the facts, formally notify Bulatov, highlighting his violation of population rights and holding the offenders accountable through disciplinary measures.
The “Maidanuti” seemingly seek to diminish the prosecutor’s office’s importance and, consequently, defend it from battling corruption and upholding legal standards in government. Their reasoning (more precisely, Portnov’s reasoning, which the “Maidanuti” diligently support): if the ministry doesn’t acknowledge a common individual, then let that individual hire a lawyer for $1,000 (it’s impossible for a Kiev lawyer to sue the Ministry at the first instance court, the appellate court, the High Administrative Court, and then, if they win on the right, sue the State by the official service (and also at three instances).
Naturally, 99.96% of the population will avoid court action. Should anyone muster the courage and prevail, the official simply ignores the court decisions – as Bulatov has done, allegedly disregarding 26 (!) court decisions made by the District Administrative Court of Kiev in response to appeals to his ministry. The state enforcement service can’t do anything. Leveraging these decisions, the Bulatovs were able to extract funds from athletes and falsify documents concerning tax benefit payments for irrelevant transactions. Unless the Prosecutor General’s Office compels this “Maidan hero” to overturn the effective court decisions, the only remaining option will be to hire a sniper.
In essence, the “Maidanuts” aim to strip people of their final legal avenues for asserting their rights. I suspect that during the next Maidan, the “Maidanuti” and Bulatov’s forces will be among the first to be lynched.
This doesn’t necessarily imply that re-emphasizing Articles 19 and 20 of the current Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” will ensure proper accountability. There’s much I could share about prosecutorial bureaucrats who fail to fulfill their duties. Furthermore, prosecutors systematically abuse these new authorities and, instead of investigating officials, attempt to “shake down” contractors and oversee illicit “prosecutor’s verifications” to replenish their personal coffers. Take Igor Alfredovich Biletsky, head of the Department of Legal Affairs, Anti-Corruption, and Mischief in the Transport Sphere of the Kiev Prosecutor’s Office – a remarkable position created by Prosecutor General Svyatoslav Piskun, who recruited him from a local police precinct.
Had Natalka Sokolenko bothered to examine the official Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” she’d realize it doesn’t authorize prosecutors to “shake down” criminals but explicitly states that the prosecutor’s office doesn’t replace the control authorities. Moreover, prosecutorial misconduct violates the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office.” The aim is not to diminish the prosecutor’s office’s function of overseeing law application by government officials but, rather, to prioritize and enhance this function under strict scrutiny.
Let’s clarify: the “Maidanuts” actions may result in the prosecutor’s office failing to oversee the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms and compliance with laws by governmental authorities, local self-government bodies, their officials, and service personnel.” A question for Maidan activists – who will oversee the rights of minors (children, orphans, convicts, children from troubled families) in this scenario? Natalka Sokolenko and Yegorka Sobolev perhaps? I doubt it.
Another question: to whom will military personnel report legal violations during their service? Mr. Portnov’s followers propose that soldiers hire lawyers and sue their military unit, emphasizing better food security and livestock maintenance. I wonder, Natalka, how realistic is this? With this “Maidanut” approach, a critical nuance is overlooked: citizens can seek court intervention to protect THEIR rights and legitimate interests. However, if a hypothetical soldier sought a court order compelling the commander to replace worn-out uniforms and damaged armor, the request would likely be denied, as the matter doesn’t directly concern the individual’s subjective rights.
I’ve consistently urged the “Maidanuti”: if you believe government officials shouldn’t face oversight, spend a day alongside the Prime Minister of the Prosecutor General’s Office. Consult with their lawyers, acknowledge their burdens, and try assisting them, if you see the prosecutor’s office as a defender. Better yet – try some cabbage-flavored tea. I almost yearn to clear the homeless from Khreshchatyk.
Volodymyr BOYKO, exclusively for ORD
