#думки_вголос 🧐 The Labaziuk case is approaching a final decision, and there’s a strange silence in the media… a “torp...

#думки_вголос 🧐

The Labaziuk case is approaching a final decision, and there’s a strange silence in the media… a “torpedo” is indeed roaming the parliament

I’ve been noticing a rather interesting trend around the case of Member of Parliament Serhiy Labaziuk, who is accused of attempting to bribe high-ranking officials for 150 thousand dollars in exchange for assistance in obtaining government contracts.

Let me remind you: on 27 the High Anti-Corruption Court was supposed to move toward a final decision in this case. The SAP is seeking 8 years and 6 months of imprisonment for Labaziuk with confiscation of property. However, the hearing of the defendants’ last statements was postponed because of a report about the hospitalization of his possible accomplice Denys Nazimov. The next hearing was scheduled for 9 November.

And here’s what surprises me. A case that was making headlines across the information space has now, at the final stage of the trial, practically disappeared from the media agenda.

Normally, in such high-profile corruption cases—especially when they involve sitting members of parliament—the media rush to report on every hearing, the prosecutor’s statements, and the prospects for a verdict. But here there are only isolated, fairly restrained publications.

And this is despite the fact that the case involves a sitting lawmaker, former Vice Prime Minister Kubrakov, Mustafa Nayyem, NABU, and the SAP.

So where does this astonishing media silence come from?

And this inevitably brings to mind something I wrote about earlier: a NABU “torpedo” is roaming the parliament—Serhiy Labaziuk.

Let me remind you: according to my sources, this concerns an unofficial cooperation between the deputy and the anti-corruption agencies. In other words, Labaziuk may have agreed to help document corrupt actions of other officials in exchange for certain procedural concessions in his own case…

Earlier I already drew attention to the story of his personal driver Bohdan Shudra, who refused to testify in the HACC and was fined 3400 hryvnias for it. Also to the circumstances of the car accident involving Labaziuk and Shudra, which, in my view, left a number of questions unanswered.

Of course, the mere lack of extensive coverage proves nothing. But could it be that some newsrooms simply decided not to draw extra attention to this case? And might that be connected to possible arrangements around the deputy? I won’t assert that anyone instructed the media accordingly… yet the silence is truly surprising.

For now—let’s watch. Both the court and the media reaction, and the subsequent developments in this case.