Why Ukraine's anti-corruption strategy bypassed the government and how it is meant to help
On 2 April, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers a revised draft of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2026–2030. The document was developed by the Agency together with experts and civil society representatives. Its adoption is an international obligation of Ukraine.
Since the government has so far not processed the document, it was registered in the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian parliament] without prior approval from the Cabinet. This is a draft law On the Principles of Anti-Corruption Policy of Ukraine for 2026-2030.
Notably, this pre-emptive step allowed the strategy to retain its ambition, as the Cabinet was reportedly preparing to remove or weaken certain key elements.
Read more about why this alternative procedure was necessary, what the government failed to change and what the new strategy entails in the article by Nataliia Sichevliuk of Transparency International Ukraine: A strategy to bypass government. Will there be consequences from changing the rules of Ukraine's main anti-corruption document?
In early April 2026, NACP completed consultations on the draft Anti-Corruption Strategy with relevant institutions and submitted it to the government for consideration.
However, after the strategy remained in the Cabinet without approval for more than a month, raising concerns about missed deadlines and even potential financial losses for Ukraine, the head of the parliamentary Anti-Corruption Committee, Anastasiia Radina, on 13 May 2026 broke with tradition and registered the draft law herself: On the Principles of State Anti-Corruption Policy for 2026-2030.
Importantly, this is not a "personal draft by Radina". Its content has been agreed upon, although it does not yet have government endorsement.
The logic behind this expedited move is clear. Adoption of the anti-corruption strategy is an international obligation of Ukraine. Under the Ukraine Facility plan, the deadline for adopting the strategy and the related implementation programme is the end of June 2026, and given parliamentary procedures, time is already very limited.
However, registering the draft law by Anastasiia Radina does not mean the government can now ignore the document – quite the opposite.
If the Cabinet of Ministers has its own position, it should still review the NACP version as soon as possible and communicate its stance to Parliament. The Anti-Corruption Committee could then take government comments into account and, if agreed, incorporate them into the draft law already submitted.
If the government ignores this opportunity, it would effectively forfeit its influence over the content of the strategy and end up in a situation where it must implement an anti-corruption action plan based on a document finalised without its input.
Structurally, the document submitted by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) at the beginning of April consists of three sections.
The Agency took a more inclusive approach to preparing the new strategy compared to the previous cycle. External expert groups were involved in drafting individual subsections, thematic research was conducted, and each section was accompanied by public discussions. Recordings, presentations and tables showing how comments were addressed were published. This is considered good practice that improves transparency and quality.
Transparency International Ukraine was also involved in several stages of the strategy’s development.
The section on whistleblower protection is more robust and envisages alignment with EU Directive 2019/1937, the standardisation of the definition of a "whistleblower", and the modernisation of the Unified Reporting Portal.
In the area of anti-corruption criminal justice (cooperation between NABU, SAPO and the High Anti-Corruption Court), the document aligns with technical recommendations of the European Commission, including provisions on independent wiretapping authority for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, expanded powers for the Head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and changes to the procedures for appointing the Prosecutor General.
At the same time, the document also has shortcomings. For example, the effectiveness of e-declaration verification mechanisms and anti–money laundering tools still needs further improvement. There is hope these issues will be addressed during parliamentary consideration.