The detention of Hennadiy Korban – a fight against corruption, or against political opponents?

On 31 October in Dnipropetrovsk, officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine detained Hennadiy Korban, leader of the UKROP party and a close associate of the oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskiy, who is in conflict with President Petro Poroshenko. He was detained under three articles of the Criminal Code, covering the creation and direction of activities of a criminal group, stealing property and kidnapping. It seems to be just a matter of time before Korban is formally charged. For years, he has been widely known for taking illegal actions in order to acquire assets. Korban’s detention is the first case since the Maidan of the government using the organs of law enforcement to fight a political opponent; meanwhile the joint action by the SBU and the Prosecutor’s Office, which was attended by over 500 officials, looks like an attempt to intimidate other participants in Ukrainian politics. Most of the political parties stated that Korban’s detention was an act of repression. In a television interview on 1 November, President Petro Poroshenko announced that “the Korban case will not be the last one”, and that soon “more names of those to be held accountable will be announced.” A day later, the Interior Ministry and the prosecutor’s office investigators attempted to present warrants for questioning to three members of parliament from the Opposition Bloc.

Despite assurances by President Poroshenko of the need to fight corruption, and Kolomoyskiy’s conciliatory reaction, Korban’s detention should be considered as another element of the presidential camp’s battle with the oligarch, the aim of which is to reduce the latter’s political and business influence. It does not seem that this conflict, Ukraine’s most serious since the Maidan, will take on the form of an open confrontation. However, Korban’s arrest has extended the camp of opponents to President Poroshenko’s policies, which could contribute to the destabilisation of the political situation in Ukraine, and thus hamper the implementation of reforms. Nor should the actions of the SBU and the Prosecutor’s Office be seen as the beginning of a systemic fight against corruption, but rather as a political action calculated to weaken the President’s opponents and to have a good propaganda effect among the public.

• Primary Source