NABU's Refusal to Comply with Judgement Violates Constitution, Says Former Deputy PG Golomsha

Mykola Golomsha made a statement to that effect to the news agency UNIAN when commenting on the closing by the Prosecutor General's Office of the case against the former deputy governor of the NBU, Oleksandr Pysaruk, and the businessman Oleg Bakhmatyuk concerning a stabilisation loan extended to  Bank.

The lawyer believes that the next step should be to prosecute the person who broke the law by opening the case in 2019: "The closing of the case was completely reasonable. One person, freshly appointed, at the stroke of a pen, without seeing a single page from the file, reopens the case outside procedural time limitations. This is against of the Code of Criminal Procedure and common sense. The official who did that should face justice". Just as a reminder, the case was reopened by the now former deputy Prosecutor General Kasko.

NABU's statement expressing refusal to comply with the judgement and close the case by appealing the ruling of the Pechersk District Court to the High Anticorruption Court is a violation of the Constitution according to Golomsha. "The ruling of the Pechersk Court is not appealable. NABU's stated refusal to comply with the judgement is a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine requiring that all branches of government and public officials act in the manner set forth in the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. Any disregard for or interference with the activities of any individual branch of government is improper and prosecutable", said the lawyer. "Such statements are inappropriate. Appealing a ruling of the Pechersk Court to the Anticorruption Court is against the law and the Constitution".

Just as a reminder, the Pechersk District Court has ruled that the reopening of the case against Pysaruk and Bakhmatyuk concerning refinancing provided by the NBU to VAB Bank during the banking crisis of 2014 is unlawful. Expert opinions by the Deposit Guarantee Fund and statements by the NBU confirmed that all the proceeds of refinancing had been used according to their designated purpose, that is to settle with the bank's depositors.