Shevchuk asks who funds the representation of the commission selecting the deputy head of the SAP

Questions about the legitimacy of the process

Lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk, who is a member of the selection commission for the deputy head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP), has published a series of questions aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the commission's legal representation. He emphasises who exactly acts on behalf of this body and from which sources the relevant services are funded.

“Від самого початку я публічно говорив про можливі маніпуляції та порушення під час конкурсу на посаду заступника керівника Спеціалізованої антикорупційної прокуратури” (From the very beginning, I have publicly spoken about possible manipulations and violations during the competition for the position of deputy head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office), Shevchuk stated.

According to him, as a commission member who is challenging in court actions and decisions whose legality raises serious doubts, he considers it necessary to raise several fundamental questions.

Commission status and document signatures

The first concern relates to the legal status of the body: the selection commission is not a legal entity, has no budget of its own, and lacks independent civil legal capacity.

The second question concerns the signatories of official documents. Commission chair Laura Shtefan, for whom Shevchuk personally voted, is abroad. Meanwhile, documents continue to be issued in her name.

“Я не маю підтвердженої інформації про те, хто фізично проставляє ці підписи та на підставі яких повноважень. Але якщо йдеться про використання підпису без належного уповноваження, такі обставини потребують перевірки, зокрема на предмет можливих кримінальних правопорушень” (I do not have confirmed information on who physically puts these signatures and on what basis of authority. But if it is a matter of using a signature without proper authorisation, such circumstances require verification, in particular for possible criminal offences), the lawyer added.

Legal representation and funding sources

The third aspect, which Shevchuk called “the most interesting”, concerns court representation. He asks on what legal basis lawyer Anastasia Maruchak represents the interests of the selection commission in court.

The lawyer demands disclosure of information on who exactly concluded the contract for legal services with the law firm Sayenko Harenc, who is the client for these services, who pays for them, and from which budget. He is also interested in who authorised the relevant person to act on behalf of the commission.

Since the selection commission is not a legal entity, the questions of proper formalisation of representation and the sources of its funding are fundamental.

Appeal to lawyers and demand for transparency

Shevchuk addressed a separate question to colleagues from the law firm Sayenko Harenc: do they not believe that the opacity of the legal basis for such representation could create reputational risks for their company?

The lawyer emphasised that he does not claim that violations have already been proven. However, he is convinced that society has the right to receive answers, and documents confirming the authority of the commission's representatives must be properly verified.

“Антикорупційна прокуратура має починатися із законності, прозорості та підзвітності самого конкурсу. А не із запитань, на які ніхто не хоче відповідати. Далі буде” (The anti-corruption prosecution must begin with the legality, transparency, and accountability of the competition itself. Not with questions that no one wants to answer. More to come), Shevchuk wrote on Facebook.