529 priorities instead of reforms: how the rule of law roadmap replaced real change
Ukraine stands on the verge of a historic decision to begin real negotiations on EU accession.
While our allies seek ways to overcome Hungary’s veto and unlock this decision, the Cabinet of Ministers has taken the required next step and approved three roadmaps – on the rule of law, public administration reform, and the functioning of democratic institutions. The first two documents are formal criteria for opening the first negotiation cluster.
However, a detailed analysis of the rule of law roadmap sometimes raises more questions than it provides answers.
At first glance, the document developed by the Cabinet is impressive in scope, as it outlines 124 strategic outcomes and 529 key actions. But will this number actually help achieve real results?
The experience of previous years shows that real changes in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies occurred not because of hundreds of minor technical steps, but due to a few key, deep reforms.
For example, the reforms that created the anti-corruption infrastructure. Recall how the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and the High Anti-Corruption Court with the involvement of international experts in selection commissions fundamentally changed the fight against corruption in Ukraine.
Another example is the reform of the courts. The reboot of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission of Judges with the decisive role of international experts made it possible to begin the real cleansing of the judiciary.
These targeted but deep reforms created institutions that, for the first time in Ukraine’s history, began to hold previously untouchable high-ranking officials and corrupt judges accountable.
These few but strategically important steps changed the landscape of anti-corruption efforts and the quality of justice more than dozens of cosmetic changes aimed at "strengthening the capacities" of existing institutions.
In contrast, the new roadmap from the Cabinet appears to be an attempt to divert attention and resources to numerous secondary tasks, thereby avoiding the painful but necessary systemic changes. Let us examine several key problem areas.
Lack of political will for real change
The most significant concern is that the document effectively ignores the key problem of Ukraine’s justice system – its deep politicisation.
Without depoliticising the law enforcement and judicial systems, eliminating mechanisms of control and positions for "curators" such as Deputy Head of the Presidential Office Oleh Tatarov or Andriy Portnov (killed in Spain), all other reforms are doomed to fail.
Take the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) as an example. It is the only law enforcement agency whose reform is not envisaged in the roadmap at all. The SBI, which after the Revolution of Dignity was supposed to become a key element of the new criminal justice system, has turned into a tool of political pressure and selective justice.
Numerous corruption scandals, politically motivated investigations, and inefficiency in solving high-profile cases – all of this is the result of the agency’s lack of real independence.
But the government chose to turn a blind eye to this and gave the SBI itself the right to decide whether it needed reform. The result of such an approach is obvious in advance.
Participation of international experts in selections for key positions
The participation of independent experts delegated by international partners has become a catalyst for successful reforms – a kind of Ukrainian "know-how" in the process of reforming judicial and law enforcement bodies.
Thanks to them, fair competitions were conducted for the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the National Agency for Corruption Prevention, the selection of new judges of the Constitutional Court, a new composition of the High Council of Justice (HCJ), and the reboot of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ).
International experts with the casting (prevailing) vote made possible what had been unattainable for decades – selecting heads of anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies, as well as judges, based on professionalism and integrity rather than political loyalty or corrupt connections.
The results speak for themselves: HACC delivers guilty verdicts to top-level corrupt officials, NABU and SAPO investigate cases against previously untouchable high-ranking individuals. Under the new HQCJ, every fifth notorious judge is recommended for dismissal after an interview.
And the HCJ has finally begun to remove the most influential figures in judicial corruption circles, including the notorious Pavlo Vovk from the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK).
Moreover, the model of a casting vote for international experts is supported by the majority of citizens. According to a 2025 poll, 56% of Ukrainians believe that international experts should have a prevailing vote in the selection of judges.
Many political players clearly dislike this situation.
For years, they were used to controlling the judicial system and law enforcement agencies, using them as tools of influence, political pressure, and personal enrichment.
That is why the Cabinet insists that the participation of international experts in commissions should be a temporary measure, limited by specific terms. Formally, this is presented as protection of "sovereignty" and "trust in the system," but in reality, it is a desire to regain control over institutions that have finally started working in the interest of the public, not political or corrupt groups.
The roadmap completely avoids the issue of international experts and the expiration of their tenures, as if this critical problem does not exist. The document is silent about the fact that the terms of international experts in key selection commissions, including the one that appoints HQCJ members, are about to expire.
This silence is telling. After all, it concerns the fate of thousands of future judicial appointments at all levels: currently, the selection process is underway for 2,350 vacancies in local and appellate courts. But the solution is obvious.
The participation of international experts must continue until concrete rule of law benchmarks are achieved, or at least until 2030. International experts are not a sign of a weak Ukrainian state but a guarantee of irreversible change – a safeguard against political revenge and corruption rollback.
Forgotten reform of the Supreme Court
The issue of Supreme Court reform deserves special attention. The roadmap contains only vague language, with no specific mechanisms or timelines. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court remains the last bastion of the old system, retaining the influence of judges with questionable reputations and ties to political and oligarchic groups.
The high-profile arrest of Supreme Court President Vsevolod Knyazev two years ago for a $2.7 million bribe is clearly just the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the country’s highest court. This disgraceful arrest exposed the fact that old corruption schemes continue to thrive in the so-called "reformed" Supreme Court.
The solution is a thorough integrity check of current Supreme Court judges and the introduction of a new selection procedure with the involvement of international experts.
This is not the whim of activists but a necessity dictated by reality. The Supreme Court systematically opposes justice reform and undermines its achievements by issuing rulings that threaten the rule of law and entrench the old order.
The Knyazev case has also proven that without a radical cleansing of the Supreme Court, all other reforms will be futile, because the Supreme Court ultimately determines the fate of any reform in our country.
Ignoring the prosecutor general appointment problem
Another telling example of the roadmap’s lack of strategic vision is its approach to prosecution reform.
The measures proposed by the government completely ignore the issue of appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General. This is despite the fact that for over half a year, since November 2024, the country has been without a fully authorised Prosecutor General.
After Andriy Kostin was dismissed, only an acting Prosecutor General was appointed. Six months of "interim leadership" in the key justice institution is no coincidence – it’s a symptom of a systemic problem.
A fundamentally new approach is needed for selecting the Prosecutor General through a transparent competitive procedure with clear selection criteria.
Even more important is ensuring protection against arbitrary dismissal. The history of Ukrainian Prosecutors General is a history of political appointments and dismissals, where a change in power automatically meant a change in the leadership of the prosecutor’s office.
Such a system makes long-term planning and systemic change in prosecution impossible. As long as the head of the agency knows their position depends on political deals rather than performance, the prosecutor’s office will remain a tool of political influence, not a body of justice.
Obligations to Ukrainians are more important than EU integration
Regardless of what decision the EU makes about the next steps in Ukraine’s integration, the Cabinet has obligations to its citizens.
Ukrainians are not waiting for 529 minor steps and glossy reports – they are waiting for ambitious changes that will significantly improve the quality of justice and provide confidence that the law works equally for everyone, regardless of position, connections, or political affiliation.
Citizens deserve more than a simulation of change for the sake of ticking boxes in EU integration documents. We need a fair judicial system, independent law enforcement agencies, and a prosecutor’s office that serves the law, not political interests.
The European Union may or may not open negotiation clusters. Hungary or any other country may impose a veto, Brussels may set new conditions – but this does not change our main task: to build a country in which we and our children want to live.
It’s not just about EU integration – it’s about what Ukraine will be like in five, ten, or fifteen years. Because what is true sovereignty? It’s not the right of politicians to steal with impunity and manipulate the courts.
True sovereignty is strong institutions, independent courts, decent law enforcement agencies, a state governed by law rather than the will of oligarchs and corrupt officials.
And to achieve this, we do not need hundreds of minor steps in a roadmap or bureaucratic games with Brussels – we need decisive action. This is our obligation to Ukrainians who are paying the highest price for the right to live in a free country, and it is more important now than any international commitments.
By
Anti-Corruption Action Centre,
DEJURE Foundation,
for European Pravda