The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has had a profound impact on many aspects of daily life, with activists and journalists experiencing increased pressure from powerful entities disturbed by their probing inquiries. For the past ten years, Vitaliy Shabunin, a renowned campaigner against corruption, has faced persistent harassment including public humiliation and destruction of his property in Kyiv, through a suspected deliberate fire.
Presently, Shabunin stands accused of alleged draft evasion, a charge he regards as a favoured tactic by those who wish to suppress civil society and diminish its critical contribution to preserving democracy under martial law during conflict. As Shabunin, who leads the board at the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, a premier Ukrainian NGO, explains, those in power target them due to their vocal opposition in particularly sensitive areas such as defence and reconstruction procurement.
The state bureau of investigation or DBR, recently initiated proceedings against Shabunin, accusing him of evading military service and forgery. Shabunin however contends these allegations as being baseless, stating his induction into Ukraine’s territorial defence force happened the day following Russia’s full invasion in 2022, and the questioned document is computer-generated and unfalsifiable.
Telegram social media channels, which shield President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his associates, while aiming at journalists and campaigners reporting on corruption, amplified the charges against Shabunin. Similarly, these platforms that are often run by unknown individuals, also urged the DBR to probe why other important figures from civil society, like Oleksandr Salizhenko, Chesno’s main editor and a recognised political transparency advocate, had not been conscripted, despite his exemption due to cancer therapy.
Earlier this year, two men visited the Kyiv residence of Yuriy Nikolov, a founding member of investigative media outlet Nashi Groshi (Our Money), known for unmasking corruption within government sectors like the defence department.
Following an incident where a video was uploaded to Telegram depicting individuals berating and labelling Nikolov as a traitor, as well as demanding his enlistment in the military, there was a public uproar. This took place shortly after Nikolov juxtaposed Zelenskiy to a draft-evader for not holding himself accountable for communicating negative war updates to the citizens.
The police apprehended two individuals linked to the incident, although Nikolov reported that they were speedily discharged from prison and their crimes were consequently minimised from impeding journalistic duties to mere hooliganism, a charge which would merely result in a financial penalty.
Moreover, Nikolov, the recent laureate of the Louis M Lyons Award for journalistic integrity from Harvard University, expressed his frustration over law enforcement’s lack of action in determining who commissioned and funded the event. He speculates that those affiliated with the government might have organised the harassment due to the financial losses they incur because of his reporting, which holds them accountable.
Furthermore, Nikolov accuses the authorities of shielding the planners of the harassment and thereby endorsing attacks on journalists in their country.
There is also wide anticipation for the results of a probe into the clandestine monitoring of Bihus.info journalists, a critical news platform often revealing bureaucratic corruption by Ukraine’s SBU domestic intelligence agency. Eavesdropped calls and undercover footage of these journalists, allegedly engaging in drug use at a new year’s gathering in a hotel on the outskirts of Kyiv were published online.
Denys Bihus, the chief editor, denounced the drug consumption but redirected focus back to the SBU, conducting an internal investigation exposing how approximately 30 surreptitious SBU agents had visited the hotel prior to the event, setting up hidden cameras in the rooms occupied by these journalists. The SBU personnel later revisited the hotel and fetched the placed equipment.
Contrary to their intentions, the authorities’ attempts to intimidate Yuriy Nikolov and tamper with Bihus.info only resulted in an uproar. Criticism was voiced by both domestic and international human rights organisations, along with Western officials, who condemned the surveillance of journalists. Such backlash led to the head of Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Vasyl Maliuk, to publicly address the issue, not only in the parliament but also while meeting G7 ambassadors in Kyiv.
Maliuk reassured that the SBU was committed to defending democratic principles, including the crucial element of free speech and asserted that journalistic independence “must be entirely guaranteed”. Zelenskiy, the current serving president, terminated the head of the SBU unit accused of the illicit monitoring of Bihus.info, labelling such actions against journalists as “intolerable”.
Regardless, the negative pressure on the press persists. High-ranking individuals within politics, security, and the military are being held accountable by a Ukrainian public that views power abuse with distain – a trait they associate strongly with Russia’s regime – and Western nations who provide invaluable economic and military support to Ukraine.
The prime military man of Ukraine, Oleksandr Syrskyi, recently mandated an inquiry into whether a journalist from the investigative news agency, Slidstvo.info, had been issued with a conscription notice as a punitive measure following a financial exposé about a senior SBU official. This case unfolded after surveillance footage seemingly showed military officials encouraged to confront the journalist by a man later identified to be an SBU worker.
Syrskyi offered his “admiration and acknowledgement” for the dedication of journalists and recognised their display of “patriotic loyalty” amidst the ongoing war. He stated, “The Ukrainian forces condemn any unethical actions by military personnel. In response to the report published by Slidstvo.info, I have ordered the ground forces’ commander… to carry out a formal investigation. Suitable actions will be undertaken based on the conclusions.”
However, civil society leaders pin the issue on the President’s office, alleging that Zelenskiy fails to recognise the significance or function of civil society experts and public scrutiny. They suggest that many influential individuals opt to operate behind the scenes, evading pleas for increased accountability and transparency.
Vita Dumanska, the head of Chesno, states that the office of the president of Ukraine hasn’t held any discussions with NGOs or enlisted their consultants. This contrasts starkly with figures like Joe Biden, European leaders, and top-ranking EU officials who interact with these NGOs when they visit the city of Kyiv. Regrettably, the president’s office remains seemingly unapproachable to them.
In her more than two decades in the civil society sector, Olha Aivazovska, leader of the political monitoring organisation, Opora, has had the opportunity to interact with at least four Ukrainian presidents. However, she reports that she has had no such encounters with Zelenskiy, nor has anyone from the civil realm. She attributes this gap in communication to the fact that their motivations are different – they come from a business orientation, not a social one.
Aivazovska has previously interacted with Zelenskiy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, during his time in the media industry and participation in Zelenskiy’s 2019 electoral campaign. She believes both men are unable to work effectively with civil society due to their inability to control or influence its day-to-day operations and a lack of trust in its motives. This leads to a growing sense of tension between the president’s office and civil society, particularly in these times when the former possesses significant power amidst martial law and delayed elections, while the latter is critical for maintaining checks and balances.
In addition, while Aivazovska doesn’t perceive Zelenskiy to have autocratic tendencies, she has fears about the potential abuse of power with the lack of democratic oversight and accountability. Civil society harbours growing concerns particularly about Yermak’s deputies and advisors, especially Oleh Tatarov, who has significant influence and oversees Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies in his role in Zelenskiy’s office. When unexpected cases against activists are opened or high-profile incidents are overlooked, many critics often point to Tatarov, a seasoned lawyer with extensive experience in political arenas, as the orchestrator.
“Shabunin remarks that while this individual demonstrates impressive professionalism and extensive insight into the criminal court system, law enforcement, and secret service, he fails to discern results that benefit the nation. Tatarov refuses to admit any misconduct, maintaining that he’s never been found guilty of a crime. In 2022, a bribery case against him was dropped due to procedural reasons. A current reformation in presidential administration does not seem to threaten his position, despite the arrest of his associate and previous presidential advisor, Artem Shilo, who stands accused of misappropriating around €2.3 million from Ukraine’s national railway corporation.
Speaking to Politico in a recent interview, Yermak sternly asserted the government’s stance of zero-tolerance towards corruption, stating, “None of my actions are unlawful. We now have a potent mechanism to curb corruption. If one is found culpable, they end up incarcerated.”
With a sense of optimism, Aivazovska hopes that along Ukraine’s extended journey to EU membership, Zelenskiy will experience a crucial revelation that the paths of civic society and his should converge to accomplish the shared objective of joining the Union.
Shabunin feels that the kind of challenges he and Nikolov have recently encountered could eventually be of advantage to their homeland, prompting their Western allies to raise their expectations from Ukraine.
He further opined on the conflict with Russia, stating that “the Western allies must consistently remind Ukraine’s government that their assistance is based on the nation’s democratic practices, as it stands in opposition to autocracy. They need to ensure that the government officials do not entertain the idea of interfering with the media and civil society. These unwarranted assaults, ultimately, will assist us in safeguarding democracy in Ukraine.”