Fake Abolition of Parliamentary Immunity

Tags:

Members of Parliament were expected to abolish parliamentary immunity; however, amendments were introduced to the draft law that effectively strengthened it instead of removing it.

The Center for Combating Corruption emphasized that, under the adopted bill, the Prosecutor General obtains a monopoly over initiating criminal proceedings against MPs. This means that only one person in the country can enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, making the initiation of investigations against MPs dependent on the integrity or availability of the Prosecutor General.

Another controversial provision introduced through amendments is the requirement for mandatory presence of an MP during court hearings on investigative motions. These motions may concern, for example, the seizure of assets belonging to a suspected MP. As a result, such assets cannot be seized without prior notification of the MP and their participation in the hearing. Critics warn that this creates opportunities for MPs to transfer assets to relatives overnight to avoid seizure, or to obstruct the seizure of bribes caught in the act.

The initiative was opposed by Transparency International Ukraine.

The parliamentary faction Holos voted against the bill. MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn stated that the initiative effectively cements parliamentary immunity, noting: “We are effectively making the immunity dependent on one person (the Prosecutor General).”

Filters

By alphabet

За фракціями

Select

By region

Select