"From a fruitless request": NABU celebrated its 10th anniversary, yet the necessity of the bureau's existence remains a topic of debate.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. The event was titled "From Inquiry to Result," and as noted by the bureau, it was fully funded by the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. However, unlike international donors, the majority of Ukrainians expressed distrust towards the anti-corruption officials, as reported by the sociological group "Rating," according to UNN.

According to a post by NABU on the occasion of its 10th anniversary, the anti-corruption officials have "traversed a long and difficult path" from inquiry to justice. According to the bureau's director, Semen Kryvonos, NABU has demonstrated its effectiveness through numbers—1,500 individuals have been held accountable during this time (150 per year). However, apart from the figures, the effectiveness of the fight against corruption in the country remains barely noticeable. This was particularly pointed out by commentators under NABU's post; however, the bureau chose not to engage in this discussion and simply deleted the unfavorable comments.

There are only 40 comments under NABU's post, with around 80% having been removed.

Criticism of NABU has only grown over the years, and distrust deepens. The latest sociological survey by the "Rating" group confirms that the majority of Ukrainians (almost 60% of respondents) do not trust the actions of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.

It is worth noting that NABU was established in 2014 as part of the anti-corruption system to combat corruption among officials, in the context of fulfilling Ukraine's obligations to the EU and the International Monetary Fund. However, corruption in Ukraine remains one of the main issues. Key factors undermining Ukrainians' trust in NABU include:

• Low effectiveness (the number of convictions is critically low compared to the number of cases being investigated). According to experts, NABU has "choked" on its cases because it investigates non-priority, and sometimes politically motivated cases, which paralyzes its work.
• Political pressure: NABU often finds itself under political pressure, complicating its independent work. Recent cases include the conflict between Semen Kryvonos and Gizo Uglava, who accused NABU of losing its independence and engaging in political games.
  
• Financial costs: NABU's operations require significant financial resources from the state budget. Critics raise questions about the ratio of expenses for NABU to its actual effectiveness in reducing corruption.
  
• Acquittals: high-profile charges by NABU and SAP often end in acquittals. This indicates that the anti-corruption officials are unlawfully bringing people to criminal responsibility. This was notably the case with former Infrastructure Minister Volodymyr Omelyan, whom detectives publicly accused of crimes but failed to prove his guilt in court.
  
• Manipulative investigations: NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors violate the principles of independent and objective investigations, particularly concerning judicial examinations they order to support their accusatory hypotheses. For instance, NABU detectives do not hesitate to order such examinations from friendly private structures, such as LLC "S AND D." Or they may attempt to annul examinations if the results do not meet their expectations. For example, this happened in the case of former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi, where detectives wanted to conceal the results of a judicial examination that they themselves ordered.
  

Thus, on one hand, the results of the agency's work do not meet the expectations of many citizens, as the level of corruption in Ukraine remains high and the number of convictions is low. On the other hand, the very existence of an independent anti-corruption body is crucial for international support of Ukraine and its integration into the EU.

Considering the results over the past 10 years, NABU's effectiveness remains debatable, and the system clearly requires reform to enhance the effectiveness of the fight against corruption while reducing the political and PR aspects of the agency's work.

Equally important is the personal accountability of NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors for the unlawful prosecution of individuals. After all, in the case of the acquitted former minister Volodymyr Omelyan, not a single detective or prosecutor has been held accountable.