Key facts
- Ukraine is experiencing a systematic use of legal mechanisms to pressure anti-corruption activists and institutions.
- 29 cases of pressure on anti-corruption activists were documented from the second half of 2025 through 2026.
- 28 criminal proceedings were initiated against activists, including charges of high treason.
- Arbitrary searches were conducted in 24 cases, with 19 occurring simultaneously on July 21.
- The use of these formally lawful mechanisms is seen as a direct threat to the rule of law and democratic development.
Protests in Ukraine, initially seen as a sign of a functioning democracy, are now viewed as symptoms of a more concerning trend: the systematic use of legal mechanisms to suppress civil society and anti-corruption efforts. While public outcry can force policy reversals, pressure often shifts to less visible, more insidious forms.
Recent analysis highlights a coordinated effort involving criminal procedural, administrative, political, and informational tactics targeting those exposing high-level corruption. This has led to whistleblowers suspending cooperation due to safety fears, potentially disrupting investigations and evidence gathering by institutions like NABU and SAPO.
From the latter half of 2025 through 2026, ZMINA documented 29 instances of pressure on anti-corruption activists. These included 28 criminal proceedings, some under serious charges like high treason, and 24 arbitrary searches, many conducted urgently and simultaneously. The investigations leading to these searches were sometimes initiated only weeks prior or had been dormant for years.
One notable case involved the early morning home search of Yevhen Tokar, head of NABU's Detective Unit, by eight armed officers. His wife and daughter's devices were seized under duress. Two other NABU detectives, Ruslan Mahamedrasulov and Viktor Husarov, were detained and held for five months in poor conditions.
These actions, while appearing to use lawful procedures, are seen as violations of human rights and pose a significant threat to the rule of law, Ukraine's democratic development, and its European integration path. The 'Midas' case, for instance, saw notices of suspicion issued against high-ranking officials, including the current Justice Minister and former Presidential Office head.
Despite these pressures and accusations, including charges of high treason against NABU detectives, no convictions have been secured. Meanwhile, those allegedly behind the pressure campaigns have reportedly faced no repercussions and even received promotions. The normalization of using legal tools to instill fear and discredit anti-corruption efforts risks transforming these institutions into mere formal components of the system, stripped of their independence.