Tuesday’s approval of a law curing the independence of Ukraine’s anticorruption agency and the special prosecutor for corruption has sparked a furious backlash from citizens, NGOs, and Ukraine’s international partners. In today’s Guest Post Oksana Nesterenko, the Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Research and Educational Center of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and Andrii Biletskyi, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center, explain its impact on a critical element in the fight against corruption: Ukrainians’ willingness to blow the whistle on corrupt officials and their private sector accomplices.

The big, disappointing story in Ukraine this week was the fast-tracked passage of legislation curbing the independence of NABU, the anticorruption agency, and SAPO, the special prosecutor for corruption.

Passage of what is now Law No. 4555-IX dealt a serious blow to the independence of the two agencies responsible for tackling high-level corruption. It gives the Prosecutor General sweeping powers to control both of them: authority to issue binding written instructions to either, order inspections into specific pre-trial investigations, reassign NABU-led cases to other law enforcement bodies (including the internal security service Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrayiny), close cases at the request of the defense, and unilaterally appoint members of prosecutorial teams.

The law triggered protests across Ukraine, with people taking to the streets nationwide to voice their opposition. Western partners — including the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — have already expressed serious concerns, casting doubt on Ukraine’s future steps toward European integration and its ability to attract needed investment.

In response to this backlash — which the Ukrainian authorities clearly did not expect, President Zelensky has submitted Bill No. 13533 to the Ukrainian Parliament aimed at restoring the independence of anti-corruption institutions (here). Some Members of Parliament have also registered an alternative bill (here). However, it’s still too early to proclaim that NABU and SAPO are out of the woods.

While we wait for the air to clear, and we hope for repeal of the law, let’s talk now about what it means for whistleblowers so long as it remains in force.

For whistleblowers, the key issue is that the Prosecutor General can transfer open investigations by NABU to other law enforcement agencies, meaning who blew whistle will now be known to personnel of another agency. That’s already begun to shake the trust of whistleblowers and witnesses in high-profile corruption cases, making them less likely to continue cooperating or come forward. Bottom line: this law doesn’t just threaten the independence of anti-corruption agencies — it puts their ability to investigate serious corruption at risk. If witnesses to wrongdoing fear coming forward because they don’t trust that their identify will remain secret, cases against top officials will likely never make it to court.

So let’s break it down: how these changes are eroding trust in NABU and SAPO, why they’re scaring off whistleblowers and witnesses, and how this puts Ukraine’s fight against high-level corruption at serious risk:

• (1) The law undermines clarity and consistency in the procedural handling of corruption cases under NABU’s mandate. The Prosecutor General can now decide at his discretion whether to keep a case with NABU or hand it off to another investigative agency. Such provisions of the law could not only jeopardize the principle of legal certainty, but also create additional risks for whistleblowers

First and foremost, this affects whistleblowers who have already shared important information or evidence with NABU about possible corruption or wrongdoing. These individuals placed a certain level of trust in NABU — a trust reflected in high-profile cases like the attempted bribery of Mustafa Nayyem, the former Deputy Prime Minister for Ukraine’s Reconstruction, and the attempted bribery of an official from the Ministry of Defense.

The new law raises legitimate concern among whistleblowers that the cases they’re involved in could be transferred to other agencies—such as the National Police or the Security Service —which whistleblowers may view as less independent or more politically influenced. This may well discourage their cooperation with investigations and, in some cases, even pose threats to their personal safety.

But the issue goes beyond just the investigations currently underway. It’s also about potential future cases, or more precisely, the shrinking likelihood of those cases ever materializing. Every person weighing whether to come forward or stay silent, to testify or refuse, carefully considers the risks and dangers to themselves and their families.

In such circumstances, it’s crucial to have guarantees that cases and all related materials will be handled by the trusted anti-corruption agencies, and that the information provided will be protected. Without these assurances—relying instead on political statements that can change as quickly as the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office or the Presidency—potential whistleblowers and witnesses are significantly discouraged. After all, there’s a big difference between what the law says and top officials state today but might not stand by tomorrow.

That’s why even the Prosecutor General’s assurances that he won’t interfere doesn’t resolve the core question: will those willing to risk everything for the truth still trust the investigations?

(2) Beyond losing trust in investigative bodies, this procedural uncertainty carries additional risks. Notably, there is a danger of deliberate “leaks” of cases if proceedings are transferred to agencies lacking proper institutional independence. This can lead to the exposure of whistleblowers’ personal data, breaches of confidentiality, and in some cases, threats to their physical safety or reputation from those involved in criminal investigations.

Whistleblowers are willing to come forward only when they believe the investigation will be objective, the case will move forward, and they will be protected—primarily through guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality. The current version of the law undermines these protections, making it impossible to create a safe environment for exposing corruption.

According to best practices on whistleblower protection, the higher the level of trust in the independence of anti-corruption agencies, the more citizens are willing to report corruption. When whistleblowers doubt that their reports will be investigated fairly and free from political interference, they are far less likely to come forward.

The adoption of this law fundamentally undermines the principle of legitimate expectations. Individuals who have already provided testimony in NABU cases have every right to expect that the investigation will continue under that same agency. Suddenly shifting jurisdiction without transparent and objective criteria appears as a procedural manipulation and discredits the very idea of independent pre-trial investigations.

(3) Transferring NABU’s criminal cases to other agencies adds an added burden on whistleblowers. They will likely have to repeat their statements, cooperate with new investigators, and operate in an environment that may be hostile or fail to guarantee their safety. This only increases their vulnerability and discourages their involvement.

The effectiveness of NABU and SAP primarily hinges on their ability to gather solid evidence —documents, testimonies, and information from “insiders”. If insiders aren’t confident that the evidence they provide will remain with NABU, and that the case won’t be transferred to another law enforcement agency, they’ll likely choose silence. In such circumstances, NABU will lose its ability to be effective, and important top-corruption cases may never reach court. Consequently, many high-profile corruption cases involving the highest levels of government remain unaddressed until events lead to catastrophic consequences for the state and society. That’s why preserving the independence of NABU and SAP isn’t just a formality; it’s the key to a successful fight against corruption in Ukraine.

Therefore, if Zelensky’s promises to remain just promises, and the new bill intended to restore the independence of NABU and SAP is not enacted, high-profile corruption cases will become a thing of the past, as few people will be willing to provide the necessary information to NABU