Comparative justice in Ukraine
The detention of Orthodox journalists without bail and lenient measures for corrupt officials provoke thought of what authorities deem more threatening for themselves.
Justice for journalists
On 12 March 2024, SBU officers conducted mass searches of employees of the online resources "Union of Orthodox Journalists" and "Kozak 1", the Public Union "Myriany" (“Laity”) and the human rights initiative "Legal Defence Сentre". The journalists and human rights activists face criminal charges under very serious articles:
Art.111 High Treason (up to life imprisonment with confiscation);
Art.111-1 Collaboration (up to 15 years with confiscation);
Art.161 Violation of equal rights based on <...> religious beliefs (up to 8 years);
Art.255 Creation of a criminal organisation (up to 15 years with confiscation);
Art.436-2 Justification of aggression (up to 8 years with confiscation).
Five journalists and human rights defenders were arrested, and on the same day the SBU reported on its Facebook page that it had suppressed the activities of an allegedly criminal organization, which had ties with the FSB and committed the above-mentioned crimes against Ukraine. However, no evidence was provided for these allegations. Not even religious brochures once published in Russia, which are often presented as "irrefutable evidence" in such cases.
Shortly afterward, the Prosecutor General’s Office commented on the searches and arrests, confirming the charges, but no longer mentioned "ties with the FSB" and other nonsense. The Prosecutor General's Office even acknowledged that the SBU had neutralised "the media bloc of the UOC". For reference: the UOC, as well as any other organisation in Ukraine, has every right to create and cooperate with its media bloc. This is an elementary form of realising the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Although it would be more correct to say that the UOJ is an independent media outlet defending the interests of the UOC and its believers. The UOJ publications repeatedly criticised the decisions and actions of the hierarchs and clergymen of the UOC itself.
The Prosecutor General’s Office stated that the "media bloc of the UOC" acted "with the aim of destabilising the socio-political and religious situation in Ukraine" but did not provide any evidence of this. According to other law enforcement reports, evidence of such activity is found on the UOJ website, i.e. it is public information, the result of completely normal and legitimate journalistic activity. How this can even remotely correspond to the definition of criminal articles is completely incomprehensible.
The court ruled to detain all the arrested journalists for a period of two months without the possibility of bail.
No one doubts that this term can be extended many times. The journalists' "crimes", as stated, are posted on the UOJ website.
That is, everyone can make sure that this is coverage of facts, events of church life that actually took place, analytical articles using the same verified factual material with references to sources. And for this, the Prosecutor's Office wants to demand a life sentence from the court.
Nothing more absurd could be imagined, no adequate court would make such a judgement. Nevertheless, the law enforcers have already achieved certain results - the court sent the journalists to a pre-trial detention centre without the right to bail.
Justice for corrupt officials
Now let's see to whom and for what actions the court has appointed a much milder preventive measure. Probably, one of the most high-ranking officials suspected of committing crimes is the former head of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Kniazev. This is not just a judge but, one could say, the face of the entire judicial system of Ukraine. He is suspected of receiving a bribe on a particularly large scale, about 3 million dollars. The court immediately agreed to release him on bail, although, given his position and connections, he could influence the course of the investigation while at large. The court initially set the bail amounting to 107 million hryvnias, but then reduced it six times and finally set only 18 million hryvnias, under which Kniazev was released from the pre-trial detention centre.
Another recent high-profile case of fraud with the funds of the Ministry of Defence (the money that is vital for the country's defence) is the "Hrynkevyches case".
In January 2024, the court granted bail in the amount of UAH 500m to the three main defendants in the case. This is despite the fact that they are accused of supplying substandard clothing to the AFU and causing losses worth 1.2 billion hryvnias.
Even earlier, everyone was discussing a corruption “eggs for 17 hrn” scandal. On December 23, 2022, the director of the Department of Public Procurement, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, signed an agreement with LLC "Active Company" for the purchase of products worth 13.16 billion hryvnias. This is despite the authorized capital of LLC "Active Company" being only one thousand hryvnias, according to Wikipedia, but its director was a former head of one of the state enterprises of the Ministry of Defence.
After an investigation by the “Dzerkalo Tyzhnia” ( the “Mirror of the Week”), it was found that the Ministry of Defenсe was buying eggs for 17 hrn each (the real price being 7 hrn), potatoes for 22 hrn (in stores 8-9 hrn), chicken thighs for 120 hrn per kilo (in stores – 80 hrn), and so on. Despite all these shocking facts of profiteering from the war and billion-dollar sums passing through the hands of the suspects, the court set bail for B. Khmelnytsky at only 40 million hryvnias.
Here is a lower profile example. A few weeks ago, the police reported the exposure of the Ministry of Defence officials in the Vinnytsia Region. According to the investigation, during procurement for the military, they caused damage to the budget amounting to 4.3 million hryvnias. The scheme was simple: the officials concluded a contract for the sale of 2,000 army beds at inflated prices. The main suspect was granted bail of UAH 4 million, while his accomplices were placed under 24-hour house arrest.
There are many such examples. And in all such cases law enforcers presented to the court physical evidence, documents, money and so on. In other words, the courts could be convinced that there were indeed good reasons to suspect these individuals of committing offences.
In the case of the Orthodox journalists, however, there is no evidence of unlawful activity at all. Nevertheless, they are subjected to pre-trial detention for 60 days without the right to bail. And the law enforcement agencies are aiming at the heaviest sentences.
Why is that? Why do people involved in cases of obvious harm to the country's security go free on bail while journalists engaged in ordinary journalistic activities stay behind bars?
What is the reason for the double standards
The answer to this question may lie in the fact that the Ukrainian authorities consider journalistic activity to be more dangerous to themselves than the activities of corrupt officials embezzling funds from the AFU during the war. Indeed, the truth is much more threatening than material losses. By this logic, one can be more tolerant of corruption and various scams than of thousands of people learning the truth about temple seizures or anti-church laws.
In many democratic countries, journalism is called the fourth power (after the legislative, executive and judicial branches). And this is indeed true.
Different media offer people information, analyses, make them think and draw conclusions. These media may compete with each other in defending certain theses. But they all offer people a certain point of view, and it is up to people to decide whether they will accept it or not. This is an integral element of freedom of speech, which in turn is the key to the successful development of the state and society. However, there are countries and periods in their history where authorities prefer to silence journalists and not to disclose the truth about their actions, because it may harm the interests of those in power.
We would like to stress: not the interests of the state and society, which are interested in freedom of speech, but the interests of those in power, who put their interests above society and the state.
If the authorities want to take certain illegal, unpopular or immoral actions, the main thing they should fear is the disclosure of such actions. This is why they need to silence journalists. They aim to ensure that as few people as possible learn about such actions.
What does the Ukrainian government plan to do after neutralizing the "media bloc of the UOC", as the Prosecutor General's Office put it? On the surface, there are two options: either the final adoption of the anti-church law 8371 and the ban on the UOC or the final expulsion of the UOC from the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, or both of these actions together.
Presumably, the authorities believe that without UOJ publications on these issues, society will resist such actions less. But this is the main mistake of those currently in power.
They think that the UOJ is one of the key obstacles to banning the UOC or seizing the Lavra. Actually, everything is much more serious.
It is not the UOJ (although the UOJ too) that prevents the destruction of the UOC, but the Providence of God, the promise of Jesus Christ: "...I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..." (Matthew 16:18). Let us remember how the persecutor Saul sought to destroy the Church and what the Lord said to him: "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14). Let us remember how the same Saul, having already become an apostle and being in bonds for the name of Christ, wrote to his disciple Timothy: "...Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound" (2 Timothy 2:9).
It is impossible to bind the Word of God, it is impossible to destroy the Church of Christ, even putting Orthodox journalists and human rights activists behind bars. History has repeatedly proven the truth of these words. We believe that it will be so this time, too. And it is time for Ukraine to stop using double standards of justice, otherwise nothing good will await us in the future.
