Support, even when it’s difficult: DEJURE’s response to allegations and challenges in the work of the Public Integrity Council

The Public Integrity Council (PIC) is never an easy endeavour: 20 independent people accustomed to seeking and defending the truth are a formidable force. However, this also presents its challenges, as each individual may hold their own truth, as well as their willingness to defend it to the fullest extent.

The third composition of the Public Integrity Council has completed its work: on August 4, a meeting of NGOs elected the next members for the next two years. At DEJURE Foundation, we are grateful to the journalists, lawyers, and academics who, during the full-scale invasion, found the strength to dedicate a significant part of their lives to the work of cleansing the judicial system. The third PIC term was marked by many achievements.

Of course, we would prefer to share only positive memories of our cooperation. However, public accusations against DEJURE Foundation also compel us to respond publicly.

First, we should explain the basics for those who have not been deeply involved in PIC matters. The Public Integrity Council is an official body, but it is not funded from the state budget. Its functioning is entirely dependent on external, currently donor, funding.

The only NGO currently engaged in administering, supporting, and building the capacity of the Public Integrity Council is DEJURE Foundation. Is this solely our desire? No. We have repeatedly proposed that other NGOs share this responsibility, but so far without success. Does everything always go perfectly? Far from it. Do we enjoy taking hits from both the enemies of judicial reform and our friends? Absolutely not. However, despite everything, we try to support this body as best we can and to the extent possible.

Below, we will examine the accusations in more detail and provide our comments.

“No secretariat formed, despite having a grant for it”

The very idea that we might deliberately reduce PIC’s effectiveness is absurd. The Council’s capacity is a strategic priority for DEJURE. The Public Integrity Council is a unique body that exists only in Ukraine, and its role in the selection and evaluation of judges is a litmus test of whether judicial reform in the country is moving in the right direction.

In fact, since the PIC’s establishment, it has always had a secretariat. Those who have worked in the body understand that managing such a workload alone is unrealistic, especially while holding a primary job. The overwhelming majority of the secretariat consists of analysts who collect and process information from open sources for PIC members. Traditionally, DEJURE hires and pays them from donor funds. Sometimes resources from other DEJURE projects are used to support the PIC.

Some of these projects existed at the time the third term began, others appeared later. From the start of this term, we proposed that the secretariat not be limited to analysts collecting information. Understanding the workload, we suggested appointing a head of the secretariat, two lawyers, a communications specialist, and other experts who would significantly relieve the members’ workload. However, in the first recruitment round, we were unable to find highly qualified specialists acceptable to the PIC. Later, a communications officer and head of the secretariat were added, though not immediately, as the process was blocked… by the PIC itself. The coordinators temporarily declined to hire lawyers, citing low workload for secretariat staff because judicial evaluations were stalled due to a lack of adequate access to judicial dossiers. Only in the second half of 2024 did the parties agree on the need to find such specialists.

The analysts who conducted reviews for the third PIC worked under a model tested during the previous term. At the same time, it was difficult in the current PIC to attract highly qualified professionals. In one month, there might be 60 reviews, while in another, there might be only 8. Nevertheless, together with PIC members, we made efforts to improve quality, including hiring a mentor for analysts to train, evaluate, and provide feedback on their work.

Later, both DEJURE and PIC members realised this model was outdated under current conditions, and approached the donor to revise the project and bring in 5 senior analysts full-time. However, U.S. funding stopped in early 2025 and resumed from other sources only recently.

After considerable effort, we found replacement funding and signed two simultaneous projects to support the PIC. These provide for a second tier of analysts who review the work of the first, with all specialists employed full-time. Interviews for these positions are ongoing at the time of writing.

We acknowledge that not everything went as we wished, despite the dedication and occasional exhaustion of the team. We understand that PIC members, often combining this work with their main jobs, experienced the same exhaustion.

Accountability has always been and remains one of DEJURE’s core principles. Every year, we publish annual reports and undergo regular audits, including voluntary ones, all of which are available on our website. At one point, we even received the highest rating in the global Transparify index. Anyone familiar with donor assistance knows that spending funds “improperly” is essentially impossible. The funds we managed for PIC support were American taxpayer money, with especially strict accountability.

We regularly informed PIC members about the content and specifics of projects supporting the PIC, holding multiple joint meetings on the subject.

The only thing we did not do was provide confidential information contained in contracts, not least because such demands were accompanied by rudeness and threats.

“Resistance to PIC’s autonomy”

In their work, the Public Integrity Council and its members are completely independent.

We in no way influence PIC members’ decisions regarding candidates and judges, and even our strongest critics acknowledge this.

If the authors of the allegations mean the administration of the body’s needs, the idea of increasing the PIC’s autonomy is not new. This has been pursued, without exception, by all previous terms. The idea is undoubtedly correct. The only question is how to achieve it and what the limits are.

Several PIC compositions have considered different funding models:

1. If the body’s work is funded by the state, then management is transferred to state administration, and numerous oversight bodies may scrutinise every penny. Under this model, the PIC would not strengthen its independence.
2. Another option is to create an NGO specifically to manage the PIC’s needs. This model worked for the Secretariat of the Civil Oversight Council at NABU, but proved unsustainable in the long term.
3. Each NGO delegating members to the PIC could take on part of the obligations. This happened, at least partially, during PIC 1 and 2. Currently, under full-scale war conditions, we have been left alone.

Once again, we “monopolised” PIC management against our own will. We would like to again invite other NGOs that advocate for judicial integrity to take on at least part of this work.

After lengthy discussions on adapting DEJURE’s project to PIC 3.0’s needs and developing changes to it, PIC members proposed that the body’s work be funded directly by donors. Their argument was that if a donor “took them under their wing,” the work would be more efficient, and there could be greater international support to protect the PIC from political attacks. Some members emphasised they wanted a model “like the Public Council of International Experts.”

We argued that this approach was unrealistic. First, PIC members are not international experts; second, they were not nominated by international organisations; third, “direct donor funding” is not a real format. Donors fund organisations either through an international support project or through an NGO. In both cases, long-term funding programs must be in place. A sudden switch to “direct funding” was therefore effectively impossible.

At the end of 2024, there were two discussions between donors, experts, PIC members, and international technical assistance projects. As a result, donors offered the PIC 3.0 essentially the same model: DEJURE remained the recipient of funds, but IDLO, a partner organisation desired by PIC members, was added to the structure. Those present agreed to this, or at least did not object.

Nevertheless, some PIC members, immediately after the New Year, again tried to persuade donors to fund them directly (or under any model “as long as it’s not DEJURE”), this time using falsehoods about our work. This caused significant damage to us, to the ability to find funding for the PIC, and to the common cause in general. Hence, our persistent request was not to do this so as not to harm the Council. Later, this evolved into a memorandum, which is discussed further below.

It became clear that there needed to be greater emphasis on how international assistance works for PIC members. Just yesterday, a meeting took place between the new PIC composition, DEJURE, and IDLO. We clarified in detail the mechanism for supporting the body’s work and agreed on organisational matters important for effective PIC management and operations.

“Memorandum of non-obstruction”

The cooperation memorandum arose as an attempt to establish constructive interaction and effective work. It was signed by 13 of 19 members at the time.

The idea of the memorandum emerged in response to a crisis that directly threatened the PIC’s normal functioning. Internal quarrels, distrust, and a shifting geopolitical landscape – all of this undermined normal operations. Added to this were legislative attacks. Some had already occurred and were thwarted only with titanic effort (MP Maslov’s draft law No. 10140-d would have entirely destroyed the PIC’s independence); others were future attempts (for example, reincarnating this idea through the EU Roadmap).

Over $500,000 of planned support was not realised due to the termination of U.S. government grant funding. We immediately proposed to colleagues that we search for other donors, but instead received a response that the PIC would handle this itself. After unsuccessful searches, the PIC returned to DEJURE’s proposal to utilise the 150 reviews allocated in other DEJURE projects unrelated to the PIC. This created a need to redistribute all available review capacity within DEJURE, and at the same time normalise relations so as not to jeopardise funding and the reputations of both organisations. Thus arose the idea of the memorandum.

Ultimately, we agreed on at least the basics: we remain partners, we assist the PIC in its search for funding, we allocate reviews from another project, we resolve all issues through dialogue, and we refrain from publicly criticising each other to avoid harming the common cause (memorandum text). Unfortunately, the memorandum did not provide for an algorithm of actions in the event that one party resorted to outright blackmail.

Signing the memorandum made it possible to move forward effectively. Both sides complied with it until recently. As a result, part of the needs during a difficult period without any funding at all were covered. Today, there are two active projects that will support the PIC for at least the next spring.

Could there have been other ways out of the crisis? Looking calmly from the future, now that funding exists, probably yes. At the time, we made decisions together with the Council’s composition in a way that would most quickly return the body to effective task performance. If more than one organisation is involved in the PIC’s organisational work, decisions might be better. We thank IDLO and donors who, in a critical moment, contributed resources for PIC reviews and stood shoulder to shoulder with us and the Council.

What happened during the election of the fourth PIC composition?

On August 4, during the meeting to form the new PIC composition, several candidates took the floor to present themselves and announced their withdrawal from the selection process. Oleksandr Voloshyn and Tetiana Katrychenko cited their reason as the belief that the subsequent voting would be biased. Allegedly, they already knew they would not be supported due to the existence of pre-agreed candidate lists. Representatives of NGOs attempted to persuade them not to do this, advising them to wait until the end of the voting and thereby prove or disprove, in practice, the reality of predetermined voting. However, the candidates did not change their decision.

The candidate from DEJURE, whose alleged “promotion” was criticised, did not receive the necessary number of votes and was not elected to the fourth PIC composition. The author of the “exposé” about providing “false information” had directly spoken with the candidate before the submission of documents and knew for certain about her wish to be a reserve candidate for the future PIC, given that less than five years had passed since she worked in the civil service. Nevertheless, she decided to publish this information precisely during the meeting. What exactly the exposé consisted of is unclear, since all meeting participants had reviewed the candidates’ documents several weeks before the meeting and had discussed among themselves the legal aspects of this situation.

“Existence of pre-agreed voting lists”

It is worth starting with the fact that DEJURE Foundation is not moderating the PIC candidate selection process for the first time: we invite journalists, lawyers, and academics, communicate with each one, provide information, and consult them. In the past, other actors participated in this process more actively, but since the beginning of the full-scale war, we have once again been almost alone in this role.

This is not an easy process, as candidates must not only be willing but also understand the subject matter they will work on, and they must also complete complex asset declarations. At the same time, each NGO participating in the meeting can carry out the same process in parallel and nominate its candidates regardless of who DEJURE invited.

When the candidate lists are formed and the voting date approaches, representatives of the meeting often ask our opinion about the contenders. We can and have the right to discuss candidates – this is a normal process, similar to campaigning during elections. Whether those who will vote take these opinions into account is their right: voting is held by secret ballot precisely to eliminate any influence. Moreover, we are talking about NGOs that other forces have tried to influence, but unsuccessfully.

Importantly, everyone was given the opportunity to speak, including in the most critical terms. As a result of the discussions, no proposals were submitted by meeting participants to change the agenda. As a result, 20 members of PIC 4.0 were elected, and the results were approved by the votes of all 12 NGOs that participated in the meeting, including the two whose candidates had decided to withdraw from the elections.

This is not a perfect process, and we agree with the critics. From the outside, it may appear that one organisation is imposing its vision. To avoid such an impression, more CSOs need to be involved in the organisational process. This is a learned lesson. Once again, we invite everyone who values the formation of a judiciary of integrity to join us in cooperation. Furthermore, the same PIC members who are now critics did not object to this system when they were elected to the third composition.

Perhaps the time has come to improve the model by creating a separate commission or nomination committee (possibly even with international experts, as some donors have suggested) that would select, evaluate, and provide recommendations to NGOs regarding candidates to avoid accusations that someone is controlling the process. Such a committee could also assess candidates’ ability to combine PIC work with, for example, military service.

“Military service in the Armed Forces as an obstacle to PIC work”

One of the allegations against DEJURE Foundation is supposedly a negative attitude toward military personnel in the PIC. This is not true. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, several members of our team have, on their own initiative, joined various structures of the Defence Forces and volunteer formations.

We sincerely supported the participation of military personnel in the PIC and believed they should be among civil society representatives. At the same time, the experience of the third composition demonstrated that combining military service and PIC work is challenging. Of the three current PIC members serving in the Armed Forces, two have already left the PIC early, and before that, for several months, no reviews of judges and candidates were assigned to them at their request. If military personnel are in the PIC composition, this workload falls on the rest of the team. Oleksandr Voloshyn himself confirmed at the meeting that over the past six months, he was able to process only five candidates due to his service workload.

The workload issue is particularly acute for this PIC and was also a significant concern for candidates in PIC 4.0. We considered it our duty to convey these circumstances to the NGOs forming the PIC composition, and we did so.

Instead of a conclusion

We regret that we have found ourselves in this situation and were unable to avoid it despite all our efforts. It clearly does not strengthen the PIC. At the same time, we are committed to continuing our efforts to promote the unhindered and independent work of the PIC and to effectively complete judicial reform.

Overall, the discussion raised by our colleagues regarding funding, management models, and selection mechanisms is appropriate and necessary. The only thing is that we would very much like it to take place in a constructive tone. We understand that both the accusations and the details of our responses are already being used and will continue to be used by opponents of judicial reform. Many things could have been resolved through a partnership dialogue. Nevertheless, we are open to further discussion on how to make the PIC capable, maximally autonomous, and able to see through the cleansing of the judiciary to a successful conclusion. This is and remains our strategic priority.

We make mistakes and are ready to acknowledge them, to seek solutions and ways to improve. It is important for us to hear constructive criticism and to share the initiative of people who share our common goal. Once again, we emphasise that there is no “terrible monopoly” on finding and administering the PIC’s needs, and if there are those willing to take on part of the responsibilities, we invite you to join us.

We thank the third composition of the Public Integrity Council for its work, experience, and challenges. We apologise for everything we did not do in the way PIC members and the public expected. We will undoubtedly take this experience into account in our work with the next composition.

DEJURE Foundation

The original article was published in Ukrainska Pravda.