Ihor Chalenko calls on NABU to explain reasons for late intervention in Osipov case

Questions about late intervention remain open

Operation “Carthage 2.0” caused widespread resonance, but according to political scientist Ihor Chalenko, key questions to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) have yet to be answered.

Focus on the Osipov case

The expert’s attention centred on the criminal case concerning Osipov. Chalenko stressed that society needs to know at what stage detectives began the investigation and whether there were attempts to terminate the proceedings. It is also important to determine who exactly made the relevant decisions.

«Йдеться насамперед про справу Осіпова. Коли детективи почали розслідування? Чи були спроби його закрити? Хто ухвалював відповідні рішення? І найцікавіше — чи могли правоохоронці зупинити можливі злочини раніше?» (It is primarily about the Osipov case. When did detectives start the investigation? Were there attempts to close it? Who made the relevant decisions? And most interestingly – could law enforcement officers have stopped potential crimes earlier?)

Need for explanations from investigators

The political scientist emphasised: if detectives already had sufficient evidence but allowed illegal activity to continue, anti-corruption bodies are obliged to explain the reasons for such a decision. At the same time, the expert noted that this does not exempt them from the need to punish everyone whose guilt is proven in court.

Verification of the legality of authorities’ actions

In addition, Ihor Chalenko proposed verifying whether NABU and SAP acted within the law during the investigation and the publication of materials. According to him, high-profile recordings, searches, and spectacular video clips constitute only part of the overall context.

«А от пояснити, як саме працювали слідчі та чому ухвалювали ті чи інші рішення, антикорупційні органи теж повинні» (However, anti-corruption bodies must also explain exactly how the investigators worked and why they made one decision or another).