By  Gyunduz Mamedov , PhD in Law, Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine (2019–2022) and  Nataliia Mazur , Attorney, AZONES Law Firm

Last week, the issue of anti-corruption once again came to the forefront in Ukraine. The catalyst was a series of legislative initiatives that could have curtailed the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. These moves triggered a strong wave of criticism. What was striking was not only the outrage itself but also the breadth of the response. The loudest voice came from the youth. This generation was the first to take to the streets, sending a clear message: the independence of anti-corruption institutions and Ukraine’s democratic development are matters of our shared future.

This protest was more than a reaction to a single legislative proposal. It was a reminder that, for the younger generation, democratic values are part of their identity. It reflected an understanding that without fair rules there can be no justice, no development, and no trust. For this reason, despite its initial rhetoric, the government was compelled to step back. Today, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law restoring the powers that had been stripped from the anti-corruption bodies.

Yet this confrontation exposed a much deeper issue: the absence of a unified vision for the Ukrainian state. In this discussion, it is instructive to look to the experience of countries that have successfully moved from entrenched corruption to effective and transparent governance. Of course, Ukraine has its own unique context and cannot simply replicate foreign models. However, it can study which solutions have truly worked – and which remained merely declarative.

One of the most frequently cited examples in global anti-corruption practice is Singapore. When the country gained independence, it lacked developed institutions, resources, and established traditions of statehood. Nevertheless, its leadership adopted a principled policy of zero tolerance for corruption, embedding it in the very architecture of public administration.

In Singapore, the linchpin of the anti-corruption system is the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), operating since 1952. Its uniqueness lies not only in its independence from the executive branch but also in its direct accountability to the Prime Minister – and, in exceptional cases, to the President, particularly if the Prime Minister attempts to halt an investigation. CPIB is not merely mandated to fight bribery; it is empowered to make arrests, conduct searches, access financial accounts, and trace even minimal benefits that might indicate corruption. This applies to cases involving officials at all levels, including ministers and members of parliament. Singaporean law recognizes no concept of a "permissible gift": any quid pro quo can trigger a criminal investigation.

Additionally, Singapore’s civil service is subject to strict ethical controls – from codes of conduct to mandatory rotation of positions considered high-risk. This integrated infrastructure, combining enforcement with administrative prevention, ensures exceptional efficiency: in 2024, for instance, CPIB secured convictions in 97% of its cases. Ultimately, society was offered a new ethic of public service based on transparency, competition, and professionalism. This approach eradicated not only petty corruption but also instilled a lasting culture of intolerance toward it.

Equally illustrative is the experience of Hong Kong. In the 1970s, public trust in the authorities was deeply eroded: police bribery, abuse in licensing, and hospital extortion were widespread. The response was the establishment, in 1974, of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which was granted real tools of influence from day one. ICAC functions as a constitutionally guaranteed, standalone body, reporting to no ministry.

Its structure is built on clear specialization: one division conducts operational investigations, another analyzes internal procedures in public and private institutions, and a third focuses on public education and cultural change. ICAC has the legal authority to require suspects to declare assets, freeze suspicious funds, conduct covert investigative actions, and initiate procedural reforms in government bodies. It operates 24/7, with a public hotline and mandatory review of every complaint. Its high level of transparency is reinforced by independent internal and external audits.

Importantly, the Commission’s work has always extended beyond criminal investigations. It studies systemic vulnerabilities, proposes legal and institutional remedies, and engages actively with the public. The most remarkable outcome has been a profound change in societal behavior: corruption, once seen as an inevitable part of the system, became socially unacceptable. Hong Kong demonstrated that corruption is not a matter of "national character" but the result of weak institutions and a lack of oversight.

These examples demonstrate that the independence of anti-corruption institutions is not a mere formality but the foundation of their existence. Without independence, any reform is an imitation. Independence allows anti-corruption bodies to act as watchdogs rather than as extensions of the executive branch. It enables investigations that involve high-ranking officials and individuals close to political power. And it ensures public trust that anti-corruption efforts are not political tools but genuine mechanisms for protecting the public interest.

It is also essential to recognize that anti-corruption infrastructure performs not only its core enforcement function but also preventive and educational roles. It investigates root causes, identifies legislative and institutional gaps, and works to eliminate them. It also fosters a culture in which neither petty nor political corruption is tolerated. This is precisely the experience Ukraine needs to embrace.

Ukraine has already made significant progress: it has established institutions that meet the highest international standards, conducted competitive selections with international participation, and adopted specialized anti-corruption procedural legislation. The greatest challenge, however, is preserving these achievements amid political turbulence. Each new initiative to "optimize," "reset," or "reformat" the anti-corruption system places the country’s institutional architecture at risk. References to foreign experience are often oversimplified or ignored. Yet the reality is clear: no effective anti-corruption system in the world has ever functioned without genuine independence.

The public reaction to attempts to limit the powers of National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office is no exception. Ukrainians increasingly understand that anti-corruption is not a technical matter but a guarantee of the future. Without it, there can be no investment, no stable economy, and no European integration. That is why attempts at political interference in independent institutions provoke resistance rather than apathy.

One can speak endlessly about Ukraine’s "own path," the particularities of its society, or the difficulties of the transition period. But the essence does not change: an independent anti-corruption system is not an external obligation – it is an internal necessity. It is the institutional backbone of a state built on trust. If we truly aspire to live in a country where government is accountable, business is honest, and rules are the same for everyone, then now is the time to prioritize principle over convenience.