“Their votes outweigh ours.” Stefanishyna’s correspondence has shown why competitions need international experts

On 5 August, NABU and SAPO notified former Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Olha Stefanishyna of a new suspicion: illicit enrichment. According to investigators, the value of the assets she acquired exceeds her lawful income and savings, and she failed to declare some of her assets and expenditures.

During the hearing on the preventive measure, the SAPO prosecutor read out correspondence which, according to investigators, indicates attempts to influence the competition for the position of Head of the NACP. In messages with members of the Selection Commission representing the authorities, Stefanishyna discussed preferred candidates, their scores, interview questions, and their progression to the final stage.

The final legal assessment of these circumstances is for the court to make. However, this episode already reveals a systemic risk: Ukrainian members of selection commissions are under the influence of government officials, report to them on the progress of selections, and receive informal instructions. That is precisely why the participation of independent international experts with a decisive vote remains one of the key safeguards against controlled appointments.

Interference in the competition for NACP Head

According to the SAP prosecutor, Olha Stefanishyna and then State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Oleksandr Bukhanevych discussed the progress of the competition for the position of Head of the NACP.

In one of the messages, Stefanishyna named the candidate she considered a priority:

Stefanishyna: “Pavlushchyk (ed. – current Head of the NACP), Stepanian (ed. – head of a department at the Ministry of Defence), Hatseliuk (ed. – member of the HQCJ), Hupiak (ed. – current Deputy Head of the NACP, former SBI employee).”

Stefanishyna: “Hupiak is the priority.”

Bukhanevych: “Understood.”

Bukhanevych also forwarded to Stefanishyna correspondence stating that one of the candidates, sitting HQCJ member Hatseliuk, was not making it through. However, one of the female members of the Selection Commission (probably Ivanovska) noted that she, together with another commission member, Nataliia Onishchenko, had been doing her utmost to argue that Hatseliuk should be let through.

Why was Hatseliuk pushed through so hard? Hatseliuk’s work at the HQCJ is telling. First, Vitalii Hatseliuk is one of the HQCJ members who, on 4 August, recommended transferring 6 judges of the notorious District Administrative Court of Kyiv to another court, where they will begin issuing decisions in the name of Ukraine.

He also did not support the recommendation to dismiss Maidan judge Andrii Kliuchnyk, who in 2014 remanded a Euromaidan activist in custody.

In addition, Hatseliuk voted to recommend Kyrylo Oliinyk for a judicial position, even though the candidate was unable to convincingly explain the origin of his assets and faced a host of other objections from civil society.

Why should Hatseliuk not have been let through? Questions also arose regarding Hatseliuk himself. During his interview for the position of NACP Head, he failed to provide documents confirming the source of funds for property his wife purchased during the war for almost UAH 6 million. The commission also asked him about income not reported in his declaration and about his membership in two organisations.

Vitalii Hatseliuk is currently a candidate for the High Council of Justice. At the HQCJ, he only voted on whether to recommend the appointment or dismissal of judges. At the HCJ, he would potentially make the final decision on these matters.

The correspondence in itself does not prove that he followed the authorities’ instructions. But it does show that government officials considered him their preferred candidate and tried to help him get through the competition.

In addition, one of the members on the Ukrainian side in the selection of the NACP Head was Tetiana Tsuvina. Even before the current situation, we wrote about possible influence on her within the same competition for NACP Head.

This concerned, in particular, synchronised voting by commission members in favour of a pro-government candidate. Tsuvina, who is now seeking a seat on the High Council of Justice, denied during her interview with the Ethics Council any pressure or communication with the Cabinet of Ministers regarding candidates. If the circumstances described by investigators in the Stefanishyna case are confirmed, this would mean that individual members of the Selection Commission may have coordinated their actions with government officials. This, in turn, would indicate that an unwanted candidate’s scores can be lowered, while an approved candidate can be helped through to the final stage.

The most telling fragment of the correspondence concerns the international members of the Selection Commission. Bukhanevych forwarded to Stefanishyna a message stating that one of the candidates was at risk because of the position of the international experts:

“…but judging by the reaction of the international members of the commission, he said… he said that this candidate is in doubt. Andrii (ed. – probably Andrii Kozlov, donor-nominated member of the Selection Commission) will persuade him, and they are all from the donors, meaning their votes outweigh ours.”

This phrase effectively explains why international experts should not merely sit on the Selection Commission but should have a decisive vote in decision-making. They are not embedded in Ukrainian political or corporate networks and are therefore far less vulnerable to informal influence.

International experts must be brought back to the HQCJ selection

The competition for NACP Head concluded in February 2024. On 6 December of that same year, Stefanishyna, who was then Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration and Minister of Justice, stated during question time with the government that Ukraine should gradually phase out the participation of international experts in competitions.

The published correspondence shows how dangerous such a phase-out would have been. Based on the messages read out by the prosecutor, it was precisely the position of the international members of the Selection Commission that could have derailed the promotion of certain pre-approved candidates. The problem for political forces was that the participation of international experts made it significantly harder to turn the competition into a controlled process.

That is why this story matters not only for assessing the competition for NACP Head. It shows why the participation of international experts is critical in the next formation of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges and in the selection of Supreme Court judges.

The Ukraine Facility Plan already provides that by Q4 2026 Ukraine must reinstate international experts in the Selection Commission for selecting HQCJ members.

This is not merely a formal requirement of the European Union, but one of the key guarantees of the independence of the future selection of judges. Without international experts, the new composition of the HQCJ will be selected by a selection commission formed with the participation of representatives of Ukrainian institutions that are vulnerable to informal political or corporate influence, the kind of influence that manifested itself during the competition for NACP Head.

If a similar scenario repeats itself during the formation of the HQCJ, it will no longer be a single competition at stake, but the entire judicial selection system. That is why the return of international experts is a necessary condition for preserving the independence of this process.