Ukrainians were outraged over the Law 12414, which was rushed through the Parliament on 22 July and quickly signed by the President. It has sparked widespread protests across Ukraine, with activists, CSOs, and international partners raising alarm. The law grants expanded powers to the politically appointed Prosecutor General, including direct control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) - effectively stripping these institutions of their operational independence. These institutions have been essential pillars of Ukraine’s fight against corruption and a key part of its commitment to democratic reform and EU accession.
The scale of concern - including statements from the G7 ambassadors, European Commission, and civil society - indicates the reform could weaken Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture just as the country seeks further integration with the European Union.
Why is the law problematic?
Law 12414 introduces the following controversial provisions:
- Grants the Prosecutor General the authority to appoint, remove, and oversee prosecutors within NABU and SAPO, stripping the heads of these bodies of operational independence.
- Allows the Prosecutor General to transfer cases from NABU to other bodies under vague pretexts, effectively interfering in high-profile investigations.
- Undermines SAPO’s exclusive right to determine jurisdictional disputes and to close or reopen corruption-related criminal proceedings.
Since the law was quickly adopted amid reports that NABU was preparing charges against influential political figures, it raised suspicions that the reform aims to shield political elites from accountability, rather than strengthen the legal system.
The adoption of Law 12414 represents a direct threat to civil society’s role in promoting transparency and accountability. Its practical impact may include:
- Reduced independence of oversight institutions, limiting CSO-led monitoring and advocacy efforts.
- Lower public trust in democratic reforms and state institutions, which civil society has helped to uphold.
- Potentially discourage civic engagement in the future, especially in anti-corruption and good governance campaigns.
In the context of Russia’s full-scale war, when CSOs are providing critical services and holding the government to account, weakening institutional checks poses risks to both democratic stability and international support.
Despite martial law restrictions, Ukrainian citizens took to the streets in spontaneous demonstrations. Protesters included students, veterans, displaced persons, and activists who view anti-corruption efforts as fundamental to Ukraine’s sovereignty and post-war recovery. Their efforts illustrate the resilience and capacity of Ukrainian civil society to react quickly and collectively to threats against democratic governance.
New draft laws set to be discussed
While the law is already signed, CSOs and pro-reform MPs are pushing back. A new draft law to reverse the amendments has already been registered.
Following growing domestic and international pressure, President Zelensky has acknowledged public concern and pledged to address some of the law's most contested provisions. He introduced another draft law that largely mirrors a pro-reform MPs' proposal to reverse the most controversial provisions. Among the additions are symbolic security measures - such as polygraph tests and SSU screenings - that experts say could already be applied without new legislation. While the President also instructed authorities to enhance extradition and asset recovery, civil society stresses that without ARMA reform and transparency, these efforts risk remaining declarative. The President called for swift parliamentary action and dialogue with civil society, presenting it as a step toward EU integration - but real progress hinges on genuine engagement and political will. Both new draft laws (by the President and by the MPs) are set to be discussed in the Parliamentary session on 31 July.
Ukrainian legal experts are also exploring options for a Constitutional Court appeal. The EU and G7 partners have expressed concern and may condition future support on the restoration of institutional independence. The EU has already withheld the next tranche of Ukraine Facility funding due to delays in key anti-corruption and judicial reforms, signalling growing concerns over Ukraine’s commitment to governance standards amid recent legislative backsliding.
Civil society pushes to protect institutions
Ukrainian civil society organisations actively mobilised in response to Law 12414 by issuing coordinated public statements that condemned the rollback of anti-corruption reforms and called for greater transparency in parliamentary decision-making. Through joint advocacy efforts, including appeals to restore live broadcasts and demands to repeal the law, CSOs demonstrated their watchdog role and unified stance in defending democratic institutions and Ukraine’s European course.
Ukrainian CSOs are currently coordinating advocacy efforts to support the presidential draft law as a partial rollback of Law 12414, despite its imperfections, viewing it as a pragmatic step toward restoring anti-corruption safeguards. While internal debates persist over a joint civil society statement, the Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR) is leading the preparation of an urgent appeal to MPs to vote in favour on 31 July, aiming to consolidate civil society voices around a unified call to action.
For details on the legislative proposals, see analyses by: