The election of the new composition of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) on 4 August ended in a scandal involving current members and candidates to the next composition of the Council, as well as the DEJURE Foundation that ‘moderated’ this process, and, in particular, its Executive Director, Mykhailo Zhernakov. 

Before the vote on the fourth composition, three people withdrew their candidacies: Kostiantyn Smolov, Oleksandr Voloshyn and Tetiana Katrychenko. The latter two accused the head of DEJURE of circulating lists of candidates to vote for, and also claimed that the third composition of the Council had been forced to sign a memorandum with the organisation obliging them not to criticise DEJURE. Later, two more current PIC members — Olha Piskunova and Liudmyla Yankina — joined them.

Zhernakov denied attempts to influence the selection of the new composition of the Council, stating that representatives of organisations had only discussed the candidates.

Watchers attended the election of the new PIC composition and reports on the positions of the parties to the conflict and how it developed.

Duplicated candidates

A meeting of representatives of 12 civic organisations designated as eligible to elect members of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) was convened by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) on 4 August.

A total of 41 candidates were submitted by 17 organisations; however, five were found not to meet legal requirements for PIC formation. 

Of the 41 candidates submitted, 16 appeared on more than one list. For example, Radio NV presenter Dmytro Tuzov was listed by both the Institute for Legislative Initiatives and the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, while Yaroslava Volvach, who works at hromadske.ua and specialises in anti-corruption investigations, was listed by both the Centre for Economic Strategy and the All-Ukrainian Civic Platform ‘Nova Kraina’. 

In a comment to Watchers, the co-coordinator of the current composition of the PIC and candidate from Transparency International Ukraine, Olha Veretilnyk, suggested that this was due to the fact that, at the stage of submitting documents, the Commission might have found certain organisations to be non-compliant with the law. Therefore, the intention behind such a decision was likely to allow more candidates to pass. However, when asked why her own name did not appear in another list, she noted that Transparency International Ukraine was not taking part in forming the PIC for the first time, and thus the likelihood of the commission raising questions about the organisation’s documents was very low.

A similar position was voiced by DEJURE Head Mykhailo Zhernakov on his Facebook page on 25 July:

‘Several CSOs also submitted not only their own candidates but duplicated candidates of others. Because every time there is a risk that some HQCJ members will be overly meticulous and “reject” a CSO, and no one wants to lose good candidates’.

It should be noted that candidates’ names were duplicated during the election of the third composition of the PIC as well. One of the candidates – journalist Yurii Nikolov – appeared on the lists of three organisations and immediately submitted a resignation letter after being elected to the Council.

To be eligible to take part in the founding meeting, civil society organisations must provide the HQCJ with copies of reports on the implementation of projects involving international technical assistance, recommendation letters from an international organisation ‘with an impeccable reputation’ confirming successful cooperation or a recommendation letter from the implementer of an international technical assistance project, as well as copies of financial audit reports for at least two completed projects involving international technical assistance, or a copy of an audit report on the activities of the civil society organisation.

In its decision on reviewing the civil society organisations that submitted their candidates, the HQCJ noted that ‘formal shortcomings in the submitted documents are not an unconditional basis for finding a civil society organisation non-compliant with the requirements for participation in the meeting’. Therefore, the commission removed only those organisations that had failed to submit the required documents altogether. 

The HQCJ says that it tries not to interfere in the process of forming and operating the PIC. As one of its members, speaking to Watchers on condition of anonymity, explained, this is confirmed by the fact that, despite the deadline for submitting documents for electing the new composition of the PIC being 8 July, on 21 July, DEJURE’s Advocacy Manager Anton Zelinskyi – a current member and candidate to the new Council – brought recommendation letters for several organisations from the Ambassador of Denmark to the commission, after the civil society organisations informally learned that the recommendations from the European Union Anti-Corruption Initiative in Ukraine (EUACI) they had submitted were not valid because it is a project rather than an organisation. The Commission accepted the new documents.

‘At times, we review the positions you put forward and cannot understand why a person cannot continue working’ 

On the morning of 4 August, representatives of civil society organisations, four HQCJ members, six current members and only two new candidates for the fourth composition of the PIC gathered in one of the meeting rooms on the commission’s premises. 

The reason why other new candidates who had not previously worked in the PIC did not attend was later explained to Watchers by one of the candidates, speaking on condition of anonymity. According to him, a message was posted in a Telegram chat created to coordinate the formation of the new PIC by Anton Zelinskyi. 

‘Candidates do not need to be there (in the HQCJ building), only representatives of the CSOs. At that point the final list of 20 PIC members, and possibly reserve members, will become known’, the message reads in part.

At the same time, journalist Oleh Baturyn, who also took part in the selection, told Watchers that he had warned in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting as he was currently not in Kyiv.

‘We may have different views at different stages of our cooperation. We may disagree with one another, but it is important that we maintain dialogue, that we find common ground and keep in mind that we have an ultimate goal — in two years’ time, we must fill a large number of [judicial] vacancies in the country. We also ideally need to reach the point of completing qualification assessment [of judges for compliance with their positions]’, HQCJ Head Andrii Pasichnyk, began the meeting.

‘I would like us all to share an understanding that this is not about individuals, not about Pasichnyk or anyone in the PIC. It is about interaction between certain institutions. We are parts of the same mechanism and must work together’, he continued.

Despite the ‘ceremonial moment’, as he put it, he referred to the need to change approaches to preparing PIC conclusions: 

‘Ninety per cent, if not more, of the conclusions in the competition to the appellate courts, frankly speaking… This added a great deal of extra work for us and we did not always agree with these conclusions. You understand that every time we override your conclusion it diminishes your work… The work needs to be more effective, because at times we review the positions you present and cannot understand why a person should not continue working’.

Another HQCJ member, Roman Sabodash, spoke about the workload the new PIC members would face:

‘We have five panels, each of which will meet twice a week… That means no fewer than 19 conclusions or pieces of information per week. And twice a week we will also consider whether to override conclusions or not. Our joint work will depend on whether the PIC is able to prepare its decisions…’

HQCJ member Vitalii Hatseliuk drew attention, among other things, to the statutory requirements for PIC members:

‘Integrity and political neutrality [of candidates] is your responsibility, but please note Article 87(4) of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” — who may not be a PIC member. I do not imagine anyone here has issues with a criminal record or lack of capacity, but pay attention to the calculation of service periods… Do not bring new risks with you so that there are no questions about the lawfulness (of electing the new composition of the PIC — W)’.

After the speeches, the commission members left the room and Mykhailo Zhernakov began chairing the meeting. Vasyl Pidluzhnyi, a representative of the Civil Control Platform civil society organisation, was elected secretary. 

Reserve candidates and the ‘non-cooling-off period’ of a former NACP employee

The meeting continued with a discussion of amendments to the voting procedure, reserve PIC members and the election of the counting commission. 

Although legislation does not provide for electing reserve PIC members, this practice has existed since the election of the current composition. Representatives of civil society organisations adopted this approach in case someone resigns early. At the latest meeting, following discussion, it was decided to specify who exactly would be a reserve member and from which moment they would join the PIC.

However, questions arose regarding one of the candidates, namely Sofiia Sapihura, whose name appears on the list of candidates submitted by the Institute of Legislative Initiatives civil society organisation and DEJURE. 

Sapihura worked at the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) from 2016 to 2020, and at the time of the election to the new PIC, the five-year cooling-off period between that employment and her attempt to join the Council had not yet expired. However, she wrote in her biographical note that she did not fall under the restrictions set by the Law ‘On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges’, including the five-year interval between working at the NACP and serving in the PIC.

She explained during the meeting that she would in fact be able to work in the new composition of the PIC from 1 January 2026. Nevertheless, the fact that the candidate did not disclose this in the submitted documents angered the current members.

Olha Piskunova, PIC Co-coordinator: In her biographical note, Sofiia herself confirmed that she met all requirements, including Article 87(4) of the Law ‘On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges’, which is untrue as of today. Under the PIC Regulations, providing false information is grounds for exclusion of a PIC member.

Mykhailo Zhernakov: So it will be for the PIC to decide, if it chooses to. We are not guided by the PIC Regulations now; we are guided by the law.

Piskunova: I understand, but you are now creating grounds for Sofiia’s early exclusion from the PIC because she stated in her biographical note that, as of the date of completing the note, she had no obstacles and fully met the requirements. Meaning the cooling-off period had expired, which is not true. 

To enter the PIC with falsehood is neither ethical nor a sign of integrity.

Zhernakov: Well, I am sorry, I do not quite understand. It seems to me there is no falsehood here because these are clearly open circumstances for everyone. We have now discussed for quite a while… About how many years, when it expires, and so on? If it was stated incorrectly, well, perhaps, I think, Sofiia, maybe it was a mistake, maybe something else. But it seems to me we are discussing this openly, in front of everyone. And we adopt the relevant decisions.

Next, Oleksandr Voloshyn, a current PIC member and a service member, and formerly the Operations Manager of the investigative journalism agency Slidstvo.Info, a candidate for the new PIC from the Media Initiative for Human Rights, read aloud the relevant section of the form, which states that the person signing it confirms that they have no restrictions on participating in the PIC election.

‘We thank everyone for the speeches and for drawing attention to this. It seems to me — and this is my personal opinion’, Zhernakov intervened, ‘that at an open meeting, in the presence of journalists and members of the current Public Integrity Council, all circumstances relating to this have been stated on the record and in the minutes. If something was indeed written differently in another document… Well, for God’s sake, it may have been a mistake, an inaccuracy, anything. The circumstances have been clarified and the members of this distinguished gathering, representatives of civil society organisations, will be able to take the appropriate decision during the vote’.

‘Let me say at once that as a representative of the organisation that nominated [the candidate, Sapihura], we discussed this circumstance with her and proposed, in particular, that clause specifying that she assumes her powers from a certain date’, he added, apparently referring to the fact that Sapihura would be able to join the new PIC composition, if elected, only from January 2026.

It was then that Transparency International Ukraine’s representative, Andrii Tkachuk, proposed to formalise the election of reserve PIC members in a separate record so as not to jeopardise the main Council members in the event of legal disputes. However, reserve PIC members could not be elected in the end. After the emotional discussion, Sapihura also failed to obtain the required number of votes. 

Struggle for independence and a ban on criticism

After this, the meeting moved to discussion of the candidates. Oleksandr Voloshyn spoke first:

‘It happened that many PIC members were called, asked and encouraged to join the next PIC. Unfortunately, in my case — accidentally or not — I was forgotten. And so, literally an hour before the discussion on whether I should continue (as a PIC member — W), because military service is truly demanding, and military service will always be the priority. You cannot tell your commander that you do not want [to do something], that you will instead be analysing [judges]. Discipline comes first.

Yes, my ability to contribute to drafting decisions was limited, but especially in the first year — before mobilisation — I participated… I know why a particular provision was drafted in a certain way, what logic we put into it and what discussions were held. Unfortunately, I cannot ask other candidates what they have seen and what they base their assessments of judges on. I participated, as far as possible, in almost all processes, even during BMT (basic military training — W), in organisational matters, and from January — on combat deployment — as far as possible, in interviews’.

‘Unfortunately, we have fought a great deal during the current term of the PIC… Our discussions, seemingly conflict, though conflict is a special discussion, a clash of viewpoints… We fought for our independence. For our institutional identity and independence. And, whether unfortunately or fortunately, some people do not like this. I would like to remain in the next PIC primarily to help the new members whom you elect today preserve some of that independence we fought for. To remain independent in voting and discussions rather than voting simply because it is expected by the HQCJ, the HCJ or Europeans… 150 decisions. Because we always fought for quality. We always said that quality matters, not quantity. I would like the developments we worked on and debated to remain in the next composition…’, Voloshyn said in his address.

The representative of the Media Initiative for Human Rights, which delegated Voloshyn to the new PIC, Stanislav Miroshnychenko, asked what he meant by the struggle for independence.

Voloshyn: Over time, we encountered a situation in which the organisations selecting candidates voted (for the election of PIC members — W) and that was all. The DEJURE Foundation was usually a source of support, mutual assistance, fundraising and many other things. But under our circumstances, especially regarding access to confidential information… We consistently moved towards ensuring that the PIC had greater independence, not only from one organisation but from all organisations. 

Miroshnychenko: And you fear that this may change?

Voloshyn: Yes. Some candidates have approached me, and I have heard information that they are being promised only five hours a week… Impossible. Unrealistic. Either you do this work or you simply press the ‘green’ button. They are promised that analysts will do everything… Unfortunately, we have not resolved the issue of confidential information (only PIC members have access to confidential information regarding judges or candidates — W). And, in my opinion, it will not be resolved. Therefore, the main burden, especially relating to confidential information, will still remain… New PIC members, who will be elected, may not know the full context; we have spent two years getting here… 

Zhernakov: Are there any other questions? Colleagues, we are far beyond the allotted time and we should move on…

Then Mykhailo Zhernakov paused, waiting for questions, and when none followed, he addressed Voloshyn himself:

‘First, I wish to thank Mr Oleksandr for his service… At the same time, you have said that cannot do it under the conditions in which you find yourself, as well as certain other service members (the current PIC includes three service members)… I mean the number of conclusions they make… And from our conversations with many others, the workload is genuinely important… Members of the HQCJ, the PIC and society expect output… Do you believe you can, today, work on an equal footing with the others? If we divide 80 by 20, that is four conclusions. Do you have the capacity to produce them? How many conclusions a month do you believe you can make?’

‘No one will enforce this, it is impossible’, – interjected Olha Piskunova.

Voloshyn: If everything moves according to plan, I think a maximum of two… (pause) Unfortunately, you cannot understand me, Mykhailo, because you are not serving.

(Zhernakov nodded)

‘And, unfortunately, some candidates to the PIC cannot understand this either because some… It happened… We had PIC members with the same issues… I refused to continue teaching (Voloshyn taught academic courses at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv — W), because people who ought to be teaching me began enrolling. And I do not regret it…’, he added, likely referring to the fact that some PIC candidates and current members have taken up teaching positions or entered postgraduate studies to avoid mobilisation.

Zhernakov: My final question. Are cases currently assigned to you at all?

Voloshyn: Cases are no longer assigned.

Zhernakov: Okay. How many conclusions have you made over the past six months?

Voloshyn: Conclusions or decisions (The PIC prepares information and conclusions on non-compliance of judges or candidates — W)?

Zhernakov: Decisions overall.

Voloshyn: I believe five.

(Piskunova raises her hand)

Piskunova: I had not intended to ask Oleksandr a question, but let me clarify a little… I know the PIC very well over the past five months. And this work, including as coordinator, takes up 70–75 per cent of my time. 

Under current conditions, when we have found ourselves almost without analysts and without the secretariat we relied on, we have managed to produce 60-65 profiles a month. Yes, the quality varies. But Oleksandr also contributed, including with quality work… 

When we ask how many profiles can be processed per month, it is an incorrect question, because in addition to five processed files a month you also need to read 80 decisions, discuss them and vote on them… If we speak about involvement, we must discuss not quantity but quality. You heard the commission yourselves: most conclusions do not meet an adequate standard… Some people, without reading the decision, vote, and then, sorry for my language, we hammer out the assessment for the Commission.

Zhernakov: My sincere apologies. This is a brief remark because it [the issue of analysts] has already been raised many times…  

Voloshyn: This concerns DEJURE. Indeed.

Zhernakov: Yes, that is why I am taking the floor to respond, at least briefly, and inform everyone of the circumstances. 

Everyone knows that as of February this year, American funding was discontinued. 100% of the PIC budget consisted of American funds, the INL funds. Since then, we have made every effort to restore or supplement it, at least within the existing contracts. We have done our utmost to replace this funding. And today, agreements with two donors have been signed, and recruitment processes for analysts, senior analysts and so forth are already underway. This process is ongoing. One of the donors is present here and can confirm this… It is IDLO (the organisation’s representative Viktor Kylymar was present at the meeting — W). This remark is solely to ensure that you understand the situation.

Voloshyn: Our discussion did not begin in February or January… The issue of analysts concerned June. June and January are entirely different matters, Mykhailo. I understand that we have a memorandum that prohibits us from criticising DEJURE… But I believe that I can at least say it here, as this may be the last thing I say regarding the PIC.

Zhernakov: May I hear what you mean by a memorandum that prohibits criticism of DEJURE? Was it approved by the PIC members?

Voloshyn: It was approved by the PIC members. Because when we encountered a funding problem, all of us, excuse me, were pressured.

Zhernakov: By whom?

Voloshyn: By whom? Mykhailo Zhernakov.

Zhernakov: Did I pressure you?

Voloshyn: Yes, you did. We were compelled to approve the memorandum to obtain the 150 assessments of judges, so that we would not be accused of disrupting the competition. I can quote it. 

(Voloshyn then quoted the Memorandum. We publish it in full).

‘The idea of the Memorandum emerged as a response to a crisis that directly threatened the normal functioning of the PIC. Internal disputes, mistrust and the shifting geopolitical landscape did not in any way contribute to effective work. In addition came legislative attacks. Both those that had already taken place, which required titanic efforts to avert (MP Maslov’s draft Law No. 10140-d entirely destroyed the independence of the PIC), and subsequent attempts (for example, the reincarnation of this idea through the EU Roadmap)’, reads DEJURE’s text published in response to the accusations by PIC members.

According to Watchers, after donors discontinued the institutional support project for the PIC earlier this year, a conflict emerged within the Council, including during discussions on possible ways out of the situation. Then, according to one PIC member speaking anonymously, DEJURE proposed signing a Memorandum of Cooperation and a letter of support for donors.

The subsequent discussion about the content of the letter and the Memorandum resulted in the following text being sent to the PIC by DEJURE.

However, according to the same source, the PIC sent its own version of the Memorandum.

‘In public communication the parties refrain from negative comments about one another that do not contain constructive criticism of actions and decisions within the scope of cooperation’, the PIC’s version, sent to DEJURE on 25 February, stated (we publish the full text below).

‘…I would place a full stop after the words “one another”. Any public airing of grievances will certainly not help, especially now,’ Zhernakov wrote the same day in reply to the PIC’s proposal regarding ‘Communication Ethics’.

‘Given the lack of time and in order to ensure the fastest possible progress along the identified tracks (assessing 150 judges and receiving funds from the British), we are prepared to support this document with due regard to the following:

1. We return to the document and finalise it within the next few days.
2. We agree that we do not criticise one another publicly at all’,

read the same letter from Zhernakov, the contents of which are held by Watchers.

Ultimately, the PIC approved the version of the Memorandum above, which Voloshyn quoted.

‘I first began asking where the money had gone’, Voloshyn continued during the meeting on the new composition of the PIC. ‘Why can we not increase spending on analysis when this is the most important element for the PIC? Yet the budgetary and administrative expenses (DEJURE — W) have grown from 12% or 14% to 24%’.

‘And what was the answer?’ Voloshyn was asked by Oleh Yakymiak, the representative of the Ukrainian Bar Association.

Voloshyn: I no longer remember exactly, I can check the notes… But then Mykhailo simply stopped communicating in our chat. And afterwards I wrote, perhaps not very politely: ‘Mykhailo, I am not a boy to you…’ We still have no answers regarding the budget. And concerning the analysts, that was a forced decision because the blame for those 150 analyses would have been placed on us’.

At the end of his speech, Voloshyn stated that he was withdrawing his candidacy from the new PIC elections.

‘I am withdrawing my candidacy, partly because I know that lists were circulated indicating whom to vote for and whom not to vote for. We already saw today how Sofiia (Sapihura — W) was being pushed through… I do not wish to take part in this farce’, he concluded. 

‘Colleagues, we should fix this once again. You are withdrawing your candidacy, correct?’ responded Zhernakov.

‘Correct’, Voloshyn replied.

‘Colleagues, then we cross him out’, Zhernakov continued, making notes. ‘Do we need to reprint the ballots or what? Or simply strike through and sign?.. Can we somehow expedite this process? Let us keep to the format: three minutes per statement, one minute for questions and one minute for answers. When Q&A conclude, we move on to the next. Otherwise, we will be here endlessly. Who is next?’

The next speaker was Anton Zelinskyi, DEJURE’s Advocacy Manager and a member of the third PIC. He said he had served as an analyst in the first and second PIC compositions and performed the Council’s administrative functions in the current one.

‘I also have an idea to prepare, for example, fragments of decisions, particularly concerning free accommodation in a flat… There is a standard wording. We worked it out in the PIC… Likewise the decisions. There is a certain structure, a set of indicators… I think this can be activated. I worked about a week with ChatGPT, trained it, and eventually it began producing about 90% of a draft (PIC decision* — W). I believe this can be further used when preparing conclusions’, Zelinskyi said, among other things.

Miroshnychenko asked him why the issue with analysts had arisen. Zelinskyi replied that the workload among PIC members varies, and finding someone for full-time work under such conditions is quite difficult.

‘We now expect it (the workload — W) to be high because the competition for appellate courts is under way and the workload for six months ahead is already clear… The main thing is not only to deliver quantity but also quality. So, there will be a junior analyst, as now, working full-time. And, again, within the PIC, we developed this system where senior analysts check after the juniors. So, there will also be four senior analysts who will review the juniors’ work’, he explained.

Next, the floor was given to Yaroslav Nahalka, the candidate from DEJURE and the Human Rights Group ‘Sich’. He spoke about his motivation to join the PIC and confirmed, in response to Voloshyn’s question, that he enrolled in postgraduate studies in law in 2024 (according to his biographical statement, at the private ‘European University’). When Voloshyn noted that this occurred at a time when those liable for military service were required to update their registration data at territorial recruitment and social support centres, Nahalka said that he had the right to education and exercised it. 

Voloshyn also reminded everyone that PIC members may include academics, lawyers, advocates, journalists and other recognised professionals with a high professional reputation who meet the criteria of integrity, etc.

‘Please tell us what you mean by integrity and professional ethics, taking into account my previous question?’ Voloshyn continued, apparently referring to whether evading mobilisation could be considered compatible with integrity.

‘I simply do not understand how to answer that question’, Nahalka responded after a brief pause.

‘Colleagues, I would ask that we… The allotted time has expired. Let us move to the next candidate’, Zhernakov interrupted and invited the next candidate, Tetiana Katrychenko, who serves in the current PIC and is also Executive Director of the Media Initiative for Human Rights.

‘We saw the “Kniaziev list’… ‘It is exactly the same’

Katrychenko said her motivation to participate in the Council’s work stems from her belief that civil society must contribute to state reform. 

‘When I began working in the Public Integrity Council, over these past two years, I realised that civil society must be very united. Because if it is not united, it is easier to manipulate us, and harder for us to withstand the current challenges. And during these two years, I tried with all my efforts to maintain that unity and not to speak publicly even when I saw shortcomings in the Council’s work. 

It so happened that the Public Integrity Council is now associated with one civil society organisation — the DEJURE Foundation — which claims that it seeks to provide institutional support, to help experts who are supposed to volunteer, to work effectively… And now it tried to determine the fate of the Council itself. And for me this is shocking’, Katrychenko said.

She also added that she did not doubt the integrity of many of the candidates for the new composition but had happened to learn about the circulation of the list before the meeting.

‘But there is a list that is being circulated by the DEJURE Foundation. Next to my name, I know, and next to Oleksandr Voloshyn’s name (according to Watchers, four candidates had empty boxes next to their names, while others had plus signs)… Voloshyn has a direct conflict with Mykhailo Zhernakov. Why? It is because we are asking why this happened, why one organisation is trying not just to support… We were forced to sign this memorandum so that the PIC could function and deliver results, because we could not let down the High Qualification Commission of Judges, we could not derail the entire process, we could not say that civil society was incapable. We had to do this. We did it at night, on weekends, we worked on analyses even when we had no additional support. And when DEJURE declared that it would do everything to support the Public Integrity Council and the funding was cut, for some time we were left in limbo and could not rely on such support. Then the pressure increased… That is why I state that I am also withdrawing my candidacy. I believe that civil society cannot act contrary to the values we declare’, she said.

‘Perhaps, on the contrary, you should stay in order to defend this position’, Vasyl Pidluzhnyi interjected.

‘If a list has already been formed, and I know this from some colleagues from other civil society organisations…’, Katrychenko began to respond.

‘I have not seen any lists…’, Pidluzhnyi added. ‘Perhaps you should think about it and still stay in order to defend your vision?’

‘I think I can take a two-year pause’, Katrychenko added.

‘You say that one organisation exerts excessive influence on the work of the PIC. How do you see this model?’ asked Vita Dumanska, coordinator of the Chesno Movement.

‘Civil society organisations, which we all are, including my own organisation, which delegated members to the PIC, could in the long run assume responsibility for co-financing the members of the Public Integrity Council. For example, an agreement on an additional analyst from an organisation or co-financing the secretariat. There is a great deal of technical work… Then the broader civil society could be responsible for the work of the PIC’, Katrychenko explained her position.

Members of the Public Integrity Council: ‘At present, no civil society organisation or donor influences PIC’s decisions’

Dumanska further clarified that, as the head of an organisation, it would be difficult for her to plan such a format, including covering additional expenses for the PIC.

‘I am the head of an organisation and I understand this difficulty. But as a person who cares deeply about judicial reform, which is currently of little interest to anyone and many processes will take place behind closed doors, the role of the Public Integrity Council in this period will be very important, as competitions for the Kyiv Court of Appeal and the High Anti-Corruption Court are ahead… And we need to weigh whether we want real influence or whether we are looking for a simple solution just to ensure the participation of civil society’, she explained.

Katrychenko also added that she had decided to withdraw her candidacy on the morning before the meeting and that this was her protest against the manner in which the meeting to elect the new composition of the PIC was conducted.

‘When the HQCJ was elected, we saw the “Kniaziev list” — pluses and minuses (next to names — W)… Essentially, it is exactly the same’, she drew a parallel with the circulation of lists of potential candidates for the new composition of the PIC by DEJURE.

Katrychenko also explained that she had spoken personally with Zhernakov about the blocking of Voloshyn’s election to the new composition, and therefore had no doubts that he would not be elected.

‘A technical remark. Once again, as I said, projects have already been signed today that provide for the funding of the PIC, which we administer, in accordance with agreements with the current composition and with other civil society organisations, providing for analysts, preparation and so on. This was mentioned in the speeches, I no longer quite remember the exact wording, but they exist and they are in fact currently active’, Zhernakov began to explain.

‘As for the lists. It is no secret that civil society organisations discussed candidates among themselves. It is no secret that we are moderating this process, and that on Friday, we met, literally a couple of days ago, and before that as well, and now publicly, as we are already speaking about this, I say and have said, all those present here, and other civil society organisations for whom this topic is not unfamiliar, who are interested in the topic of the PIC and judicial reform… are very welcome to take on any organisational, auxiliary and similar functions. We would very much welcome such assistance; it is very lonely and very difficult for us to carry all of this alone. It was proposed, both in conversations with Tetiana and with other organisations, that they take on part of this responsibility. There have been no such initiatives so far,’ he explained.

‘CPLR (the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform — W) organised a round table in June…’, Piskunova interrupted him.

‘If you allow me, I will finish…’, Zhernakov tried to continue.

‘Mykhailo was not even present at that meeting… And he wrote a message to our head with the words “an attempt to raid the PIC”’, Piskunova finished.

‘If you allow me, I will finish’, Zhernakov began again. ‘And the fact that candidates are discussed is true. Some organisations know certain candidates better. The fact that we expressed pros, cons and risks is also true. As those who organise all of this, and those who invited both organisations and candidates to participate, we know very well, and you know as well, that the organisations delegating candidates are aware that issues of workload, among other things, are extremely important. This was discussed, unquestionably, with Ms Katrychenko too. For some organisations, it was sufficient this year, for others, it was more convenient simply to ask directly whom we consider suitable members. But this does not correspond to the potential, good candidates who could have been members’.

‘Mykhailo, you are legitimising talking points right now,’ interjected current PIC member Liudmyla Yankina, who was also present at the meeting but was not standing for its new composition.

‘Colleagues, may I finish? Or can everyone speak as much as they like except me?.. I have said this many times. It was signed on the 31st of last month (July — W). Sorry, but let us not turn this into sheer chaos. We are finishing. We shared this information. If anyone now feels that pressure was exerted on someone, some terrible pressure… And as for what Ms Tetiana said. The conversation ended with a phrase from Tetiana: ‘Of course, I am not blackmailing, but…’, Zhernakov did not finish.

‘I said that the potential risks for the PIC, for the DEJURE Foundation and for judicial reform are far greater than this desire to control the Council’, Katrychenko replied, raising her voice.

Zhernakov: Will you allow me to finish?

Katrychenko: I said yes.

Zhernakov: Okay, thank you. Colleagues, sorry, I am withdrawing… Truly, we have been sitting here for four hours already, let us give two more candidates the opportunity to speak. A short Q&A session, and then we proceed to the vote.

Next to speak was Kostiantyn Smolov, who also withdrew his candidacy, although he did not mention the lists or the memorandum:

‘I also want to state that what happened today somewhat reflects the moods that have prevailed in the PIC recently. Unfortunately, a certain conflict situation that began in the winter of 2024–2025, and the change of coordinators, became a kind of starting point for shifts and, as we have already mentioned, for a struggle for independence’.

Finally, a few words were said by Sapihura, who essentially repeated her previously stated position that she does not see a problem with the completed questionnaire and is ready to join the PIC from next year, if necessary.

After the speeches, the current members and candidates for the new composition of the PIC left the room, and the meeting participants proceeded to voting. As a result of the first round of voting, 17 candidates were elected. It was decided to hold an additional vote for four candidates who had fallen short of the required number of votes. Ultimately, three more were elected. They will assume their duties on 15 August.

Lists

Watchers learned that the DEJURE Foundation had allegedly circulated to civil society organisations to participate in the election of the new composition of the PIC a list of what were likely potential candidates as early as mid-July. The list contained 23 names. Tetiana Katrychenko was still included, while Oleksandr Voloshyn was not. The latter, incidentally, was also not part of the working chat to which all candidates for the new composition of the Council were added. According to Watchers, Mykhailo Zhernakov was among the members of that group. 

After the meeting on 4 August, Watchers had the opportunity to review the so-called final list, which Katrychenko and Voloshyn were likely referring to. In that list, the boxes next to their names, as well as those of Yaroslava Volvach and lawyer Liliia Sekelyk (from the All-Ukrainian Civic Platform ‘Nova Kraina’ and the Human Rights Group ‘Sich’), were empty, while plus signs appeared next to all other names.

‘The practice of lists with plus signs is a very bad thing that discredits the process. One may call it consultations or advocacy, but in my opinion, when this comes from the head of an organisation responsible for the budget and administration, it looks extremely bad and I am categorically opposed to such approaches, as well as to communication in the form of pressure and exclusively from a position of power’, wrote Larysa Denysenko, Chair of the Supervisory Board of the Foundation, on her Facebook page after the conflict became public.

She also noted that the Supervisory Board had held a lengthy discussion with Zhernakov following the statements made by current members of the PIC and would expect certain actions from him.

‘Lists with “pluses” next to names during the election of a new PIC are an unacceptable practice. Civil society has repeatedly criticised judicial governance bodies for similar actions. It is important, when fighting a dragon, not to become one yourself’, added, for her part, Supervisory Board member and The Kyiv Independent journalist Yevheniia Motorevska.

The third member of the Supervisory Board, Hlib Vyshlinskyi, who served as Chair of the Counting Commission during the election of the fourth composition of the PIC, did not elaborate extensively on his position, limiting himself to commenting on posts by Council members who had spoken about pressure.

‘He (apparently referring to Zhernakov — W) could have circulated whatever he wanted, it is not prohibited. All interested civil society organisations could submit candidates for the meeting, and he could not have influenced all of them anyway. And he did not, because I saw those random combinations of candidates on the ballots during the vote count… But in the article (apparently referring to a column for Ukrainska Pravda written by current members of the PIC — W), as well as in the speeches, everything is mixed together: money, the Council elections and some memorandum. In the end, it all boils down to “DEJURE and Zhernakov are bad and have monopolised everything”,’ he said in separate comments.

Vita Dumanska, in turn, assured Watchers that she had not received any lists. Instead, she and her colleagues independently sought information about each nominated candidate and made their choices on that basis. Asked whether Mykhailo Zhernakov had indeed requested participants after the meeting to sign a memorandum stating that no pressure had been exerted during the elections, she said that they had discussed possible ways to avoid discrediting the new composition of the PIC. However, no memoranda were signed.

After information about the conflict that occurred during the meeting was published, Deutsche Welle journalist Hanna Sokolova-Stekh announced that she was withdrawing from the PIC. She confirmed this to Watchers, explaining that she was unpleasantly surprised by the situation surrounding relations between current PIC members and DEJURE and did not wish to tolerate the manner in which the new composition of the PIC had been elected.

In addition, she said that DEJURE representatives, during personal communication with her before the meeting, had spoken of a smaller workload. In her view, the situation surrounding the rejection of Oleksandr Voloshyn’s candidacy, justified by claims that he would not cope with the actual workload because he serves in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, was biased against him, and she did not agree with this either.

PIC member and journalist Oleh Baturyn said that no other newly elected members had left the Council so far. 

‘This work is new for me. Although I have written about courts and court cases concerning war crimes, working in the PIC is a new experience for me. For now, it is difficult to understand how everything will be organised… But no one has pressured me’, he said, commenting on the conflict that had arisen.

According to him, the newly elected members of the PIC have already communicated several times to get acquainted. The next meeting is scheduled for 15 August, the day when the new composition’s mandate begins. 

Sokolova-Stekh and Baturyn confirmed to Watchers that PIC members are offered basic remuneration of around USD 900 per month. In addition, there may be supplementary payments for those who take on additional work, Baturyn clarified, also noting that it is premature to speak about this, as they have not yet concluded contracts with the Foundation.

After the meeting concluded, Mykhailo Zhernakov invited Secretary Vasyl Pidluzhnyi to the Foundation’s office to complete the documentation according to the results. They then left the HQCJ premises. 

A few days later, the Commission published, among other things, the meeting minutes on its website. The conflict regarding Sapihura was not mentioned there. In a comment to Watchers, Pidluzhnyi explained this by saying that he had simply forgotten to include it, adding that the minutes are not a verbatim transcript and therefore should not contain detailed information about the course of the meeting. He also denied that this could serve as grounds for challenging the election results, since, in his opinion, the allegations of influence were not substantiated, including because Sapihura was not elected to the fourth composition of the Council.

***

Publicly, this conflict has been ongoing for a second week since the meeting. PIC members who spoke out critically towards DEJURE and the Foundation itself have separately published their positions.

On 11 August, Mykhailo Zhernakov wrote on his Facebook page that he had apologised to Tetiana Katrychenko and that they had agreed to continue the dialogue.

‘For our part, we will do everything to ensure that this conflict moves into a constructive phase. One in which we not only improve the processes within the PIC, but also learn what is appropriate and a priority in order to make the country the way we want to see it. I believe this will happen.

The main thing is that none of the participants in the discussion is questioning the legitimacy of the PIC 4.0, despite the difficult discussions during and after the selection process,’ he wrote.

Katrychenko confirmed the conversation with Zhernakov to Watchers. However, she noted that they did not reach any agreements during the conversation. At present, their only shared position is that ‘the PIC is an important institution that must function, and in parallel a broad group of stakeholders should address the issues that arose during the activities of the third composition of the Council, as well as before and during the meeting’.

The following day, the current composition of the PIC issued a statement declaring its readiness to cooperate with the new composition and to transfer experience and working algorithms to the new members. They also outlined the principles on which interaction between the PIC and any organisations or initiatives should be based:

• Independence of the PIC. Regardless of the presence or absence of supporting projects, decisions on all matters relating to the Council’s activities are taken by its members.
• The principle of ‘not speaking about the PIC without the PIC’. Any communications about the Council’s work on behalf of the PIC should be carried out only by its coordinators or members duly authorised by the Council.
• Transparency and accountability. Information on funding and support mechanisms for the PIC must be open in order to avoid misunderstandings and manipulation.

According to Watchers, the decision to publish this statement was taken by the current members of the Council, inter alia, after communication with the leadership of the HQCJ, which expressed concerns that the conflict during the meeting to elect the new composition of the Council could be used by judges or judicial candidates whose files will be analysed by the elected composition of the PIC to undermine it in court.

Responding to the PIC’s statement, Zhernakov made another post on 13 August in which he stated, inter alia, that ‘had it not been for the “unethical practices of certain civil society organisations”, the situation could have been avoided altogether’. Piskunova and Denysenko posted their negative comments under that publication.

‘Mykhailo, again and again. Please pay attention to how you are reacting. My eyes are already tired of seeing all this. Unethical conduct came precisely from our organisation. People are trying to find common ground, to preserve the PIC 4.0, to understand how to resolve and honestly discuss what happened. Moderation is needed here. Everything needs to be discussed with donors. These semi-backroom actions must stop’, replied, inter alia, Larysa Denysenko, Chair of the DEJURE Supervisory Board.

Subsequently, Zhernakov deleted the post, noting that the parties were agreeing on a dialogue.

According to Piskunova, she is currently, together with Katrychenko, Voloshyn and Yankina, initiating a dialogue with stakeholders and seeking to involve various civil society organisations in providing institutional support to the PIC.

Liudmyla Yankina, in turn, reported after Zhernakov’s deleted post that a meeting with donors, involving the third and fourth compositions of the PIC and the head of DEJURE, had been scheduled for Friday, 15 August, but that the latter did not wish to attend. In a comment under her post, Zhernakov wrote: ‘Please, let us address all issues through mediation. We are still awaiting proposals regarding the date and time. We are ready to adjust’.

*After the publication of the material, Anton Zelinskyi wrote that he had meant a ‘draft formulation of indicators’.