A corruption taint is no obstacle: the High Council of Justice plans to appoint the head of the State Judicial Administration

The competition for the position of Head of the State Judicial Administration has demonstrated that integrity is not a decisive criterion for the High Council of Justice, despite Ukraine’s commitments to the European Union.

On 22 December, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) plans to select a new Head of the State Judicial Administration (SJA). Following the competition, two candidates were recommended: Viktor Koshchynets, First Deputy Head of the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences, and Maksym Pampura, who has been serving as Acting Head of the SJA for almost two years. However, everything suggests that the winner was determined in advance.

Maksym Pampura ranked first in the legislative knowledge test and the situational task. The Chair of the HCJ, Hryhorii Usyk, has publicly described him as an “effective manager,” and the HCJ has regularly awarded Pampura generous bonuses. There is little doubt as to whom they intend to appoint to lead an institution with an annual budget of approximately UAH 16 billion.

• Before his appointment as Acting Head of the SJA, Maksym Pampura served as Deputy Head under Oleksii Salnikov. The High Anti-Corruption Court found Salnikov guilty of abuse of influence and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
• According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), in March 2023, Salnikov received a USD 7,500 bribe, of which USD 5,000 was to be passed on to judges of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, while the remainder was to be kept as a “facilitation fee.” The money was intended to secure a ruling in favour of Forvater Plus LLC, whose complaint was pending before that court.
• It is here that Maksym Pampura appears in the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court. He figures in the case as a witness who, according to the prosecution, at Salnikov’s request, went to negotiate with judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation regarding the desired decision. In court, he confirmed that he had spoken with Salnikov and then went to the premises of the Administrative Cassation Court. However, Pampura later claimed he had “forgotten” whom exactly he spoke to there and what the conversation was about.

In similar situations where judges’ arrangements for “desired” rulings were documented (including the Halionkin, Tomylko, and Kriuchko cases), the HCJ submitted those judges for dismissal. Yet when it comes to appointing the Head of the SJA—an institution that manages billions in budget funds—this biographical detail seemingly ceases to be a problem.

Last month, the Accounting Chamber published a scathing audit report on the SJA’s activities under Pampura’s leadership. Among other findings, auditors established that:

• the SJA failed to organise the procurement of basic benches and podiums for courtrooms;

• nearly half of the budget funds are spent on maintaining the SJA itself and its territorial offices, rather than on supporting local and appellate courts;

• while hundreds of millions of hryvnias remained within the SJA, courts accumulated wage arrears for court staff and unpaid judicial remuneration.

The Rule of Law Roadmap requires a merit-based competition for the position of Head of the SJA, including checks of integrity and professional competence. Appointing a person linked to a corruption case would mean that integrity has been ignored. This risk is particularly acute given that the two previous heads of the SJA were also implicated in corrupt practices. Such a decision would jeopardise the implementation of the Roadmap and Ukraine’s commitments to the EU.

Is the High Council of Justice ready to demonstrate selective standards and take responsibility for appointing a person with such a background and such performance results? We will see the answer on 22 December.