The National Anti-Corruption Bureau, together with the Security Service of Ukraine, is working on a technical solution that would provide the Bureau with separate channels and autonomous wiretapping capabilities.
This was stated by NABU head Semen Kryvonos at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada’s Temporary Investigative Commission on possible violations of legislation in the fields of defence, anti-corruption policy, and human rights under martial law, an LB.ua correspondent reports.
He noted that at present the SBU knows exactly which subscribers and phone numbers are under investigative surveillance.
Kryvonos stressed that all further parliamentary decisions should be aimed at preventing any interference in the activities of NABU and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in the future. According to him, this is “not about political declarations, but about systemic institutional changes”.
The NABU head emphasised that despite legislative amendments already adopted, the Bureau still lacks a full technical capacity to independently carry out such investigative actions.
“If you asked what we need, then I will answer now, with your permission. Yes, legislative changes exist, but there is still no technical capability,” he said.
Kryvonos explained that he could not disclose all details, as some of the information constitutes a state secret.
“Currently, we are using technical solutions under which the SBU knows which targets and which phone numbers we are wiretapping. This creates a potential risk every time,” Kryvonos noted.
He stressed that this is not about specific abuses, but about the very design of the system, which theoretically allows for information leaks about pre-trial investigation targets.
“To minimise this risk, we need autonomous wiretapping, so that no one except us knows which subscribers are under our surveillance,” Kryvonos said.
He also underlined that all NABU investigative actions are carried out exclusively on the basis of court decisions and are subject to prosecutorial oversight. At the same time, he added that the involvement or awareness of third parties in these processes is an unnecessary and dangerous element.
“We certainly do not need third parties who know whom we are conducting pre-trial investigations against. These are systemic issues,” he added.