On January 14, 2026, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) together with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP)
informed the leader of the “Batkivshchyna” parliamentary faction, Yulia Tymoshenko, about the suspicion of a criminal offense – offering illegal benefits to deputies for voting on draft laws. This case is classified under Part 4 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
For law enforcement agencies, such actions are standard anti-corruption procedures. But for a significant part of society and political observers, this case immediately acquired a political context. The main reason is the expected presidential elections, in which Tymoshenko is seen as one of the potential competitors of the current president.
The very fact of initiating a criminal case against a leading opposition figure raises questions not only about the legality of certain actions, but also about possible political implications. For many observers, this is reminiscent of the situation in 2011-2012, when the leader of “Batkivshchyna” was already prosecuted in a criminal case. Then, according to former vice-prime minister Roman BezsmertnyViktor Yanukovych was driven by the fear that Tymoshenko could become the president, so he decided to remove her from the political arena.
The history of 2011-2012 became painful for the Ukrainian political landscape: then criminal proceedings against an opponent were perceived as a tool of political pressure. Today, there is renewed concern that institutions that are formally independent can be used to limit political competition. Even if the suspicions have a legal basis, the context and time of their announcement prompts part of society to question the objectivity of the actions of law enforcement agencies.
Just like last time, it is important that all procedural actions are transparent, supported by evidence and open to public scrutiny as much as possible. After all, in a democratic system, the fight against corruption should not turn into a tool of political struggle, as this undermines trust in state institutions and threatens the stability of the political process.
