Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

One in ten MPs of the 9th convocation under suspicion: SAP names 41 — what it means for the Rada

The head of the Specialized Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), Oleksandr Klymenko, announced 41 suspicions against serving deputies. This is not only a matter of criminal accountability — it touches on trust in parliament and its ability to govern during wartime.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 26, 2026 · 2 min read

One in ten MPs of the 9th convocation under suspicion: SAP names 41 — what it means for the Rada

Facts

The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) reported that 41 sitting members of the Verkhovna Rada of the IX convocation have been notified of suspicions. With the current number of deputies in parliament — fewer than 400 — that is roughly 10% of its membership.

"In total, 41 deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of the IX convocation have been notified by the SAP"

— Oleksandr Klymenko, head of the SAP

Context

Over ten years since the establishment of the anti-corruption bodies, a total of 79 former and current people's deputies have been notified of suspicions. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) was created on April 16, 2015, and the SAP began operating as a separate unit on September 22, 2015 — both bodies were formed after the Revolution of Dignity to combat high-level corruption.

High-profile case: Tymoshenko

One of the most recently high-publicity cases concerns Yuliia Tymoshenko. On January 14, 2026, NABU and the SAP announced suspicions against her for allegedly offering bribes to deputies from other factions in exchange for votes. Law enforcement released recordings they describe as wiretaps, and on January 21 the High Anti-Corruption Court (VAKS) placed an arrest on part of the politician's property.

"This is politically motivated"

— Yuliia Tymoshenko, party leader

What this means

First, such figures amplify questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the legislative process: when a significant portion of parliament's deputies are under suspicion, it weakens the trust of citizens and partners.

Second, in wartime every internal conflict dilutes focus on critical tasks — defense, financing, international support. Analysts note that investigations must be as transparent and prompt as possible so as not to turn justice into an instrument of political pressure.

Third, for institutions this is a test: whether they can combine an unwavering fight against corruption with ensuring the stable operation of parliament during security challenges.

Conclusion

Next come court decisions and possible new procedural steps. For society it is important to monitor not only the number of suspicions, but the quality of the evidentiary base and the functioning of the judicial system. The question that remains open: will institutions be able to turn these high-profile cases into real convictions while maintaining focus on national security and public trust?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026