General Prosecutor: Resignation, Dismissal, or Cunning Maneuver?

“I am grateful to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for their trust. But in this situation I consider it proper to announce my resignation from the position of Prosecutor General.”

“Thank you to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada for their trust, and I ask you to accept my resignation.”

These two excerpts from resignation statements belong to two different people who were united (made hostages?) by one position — Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

22 October 2024 the Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin announced that he was leaving the post. The decision looked hasty, more like an attempt to let off steam amid a mega-scandal involving prosecutors with disabilities. For President Volodymyr Zelensky, Kostin’s dismissal by parliament demonstrated a cleansing of the law enforcement system from personnel who had lost public trust.

Late in the evening 7 September 2026 Prosecutor General Kostin’s successor Ruslan Kravchenko repeated the “Kostin reception.” However, his case is special. In essence, he is the first prosecutor general to go because of an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. The investigation already includes trusting dialogues of Kravchenko with the leader of a criminal organization nicknamed Chancellor. According to NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Kanzer, also known as Serhiy Kropyva (in detention since 6 September), allegedly received bribes for covering up fraudulent call centers and, at the same time, worked in the Prosecutor General’s Office as deputy head of the international cooperation department.

Interestingly, before announcing his resignation Kravchenko met with journalists. He assured them that he would not resign voluntarily. However, he could reconsider his decision if asked by President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Verkhovna Rada, or colleagues.

“Of course this is the president’s decision. Apart from the president, no one could tell Kravchenko to write a resignation,” one former top official of the Prosecutor General’s Office told Glavcom.

Glavcom examined what the further sequence of personnel cleansing at the Prosecutor General’s Office will be and who will follow Ruslan Kravchenko amid the loud corruption scandal.

Who comes after Kravchenko?

The head of the Prosecutor General’s Office is a political figure. His nomination and dismissal are made by the president. So states Article 106 of the Constitution. At the same time, the consent of the Verkhovna Rada is required (no fewer than 226 votes).

People’s Deputy from Servant of the People and member of the parliamentary Committee on Legal Policy Volodymyr Vatras told Glavcom that to start the process of preparing a vote on dismissing the prosecutor general, an appropriate submission signed by the head of state must be received by the Rada. The document then goes to the law enforcement committee and only then is sent to the plenary session for a decision. As of 8 September, no such submission from the president has yet been received by parliament.

“We understand: if our legislator guarantees the right to resign, then the employer — in this case the state represented by parliament and the president — must accept such a resignation. People’s deputies will demand to hear the report of Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko. He should come to the Rada and report on his work. We are talking about a year and three months in office as prosecutor general,” Vatras reminded.

In theory, Kravchenko’s issue could be brought to the Rada next week, when plenary sessions are scheduled. Deputies interviewed by Glavcom assume that there should be enough votes to dismiss the prosecutor general.

But after his resignation a kind of “transit mode” is activated. In other words, temporary leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office is taken over by one of Kravchenko’s deputies. The Law on the Prosecutor’s Office states that in the absence of the prosecutor general his authority is exercised by the first deputy, and if the first deputy is absent — by one of the deputy prosecutors general. Currently the first deputy is Mariya Vdovychenko. She also appeared on tapes of the anti-corruption agencies and has also submitted a statement.

First Deputy Prosecutor General Mariya Vdovychenko

photo: kyiv.gp.gov.ua

According to the editorial team’s sources in law enforcement agencies, today is indeed Mariya Vdovychenko’s last working day in the position.

However, sources in law enforcement told Glavcom that before his “demobilization” Ruslan Kravchenko may assign acting duties to other deputies. For example, to Oleksiy Khomenko.

Deputy Prosecutor General Oleksiy Khomenko

photo from open sources

From October 2024 to June 2025 the prosecutor Khomenko served as acting prosecutor general — in the period after Andriy Kostin’s resignation and before Ruslan Kravchenko’s appointment.

In June 2025 the Verkhovna Rada appointed Ruslan Kravchenko Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Before that he headed the State Tax Service.

photo: rada.gov.ua

As People’s Deputy Volodymyr Vatras predicts, the search for a new prosecutor general may be prolonged, since this is one of the most influential positions in the state.

“Today there is no appointed head of the Security Service, only an acting head (Oleksandr Poklad — Glavcom). Recently, for a short period there were acting ministers of foreign affairs (in 19 August the Verkhovna Rada supported the appointment of Andriy Sybiga as head of the MFA — Glavcom) and acting ministers of defense (in 19 August parliament appointed Yevhen Khmara as minister of defense — Glavcom). Legislation provides for such cases. In my view, this is not quite the right practice regarding appointments with the prefix ‘acting.’ But you understand: a professional, a dignified person needs to be found. The Prosecutor General is a position that should be an example of effective work by a legal professional, a lawyer. And he has a very large number of constitutional powers, including bringing top officials to criminal responsibility,” the deputy emphasized.

One can separately imagine a fantastic scenario: the verbal resignation posted late in the evening on Ruslan Kravchenko’s Telegram channel 7 September is nothing other than an attempt to buy time and wait for public outrage to subside and for society to switch to another topic. However, today this version was dispelled directly by President Volodymyr Zelensky. In comments to journalists the head of state said that he will soon send to the Rada a submission to dismiss Kravchenko from the post of prosecutor general.

Another important detail. According to the law, the term of office of the prosecutor general is six years. At the same time the same person cannot hold this position for two consecutive terms.

Open data show that during Independence none of Ukraine’s prosecutors general managed to serve out their full terms. The record-holder could be called two-time Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko, whose total time in office amounted to almost five years. He led the prosecutor’s office with a small break during President Viktor Yushchenko’s term.

In second place is the notorious Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka from the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych — three and a bit years. In President Volodymyr Zelensky’s term the longest-serving prosecutor general was Iryna Venediktova — two years and four months.

How to restore trust?

Glavcom turned to expert specialists asking them to advise the future prosecutor general how to restore trust in the key law enforcement body. Prosecutor General in 2019-2020 years Ruslan Ryaboshapka believes the root of the current problem lies in the unrealized reform of the prosecution in 2019-2020 years. The aim of the reform, besides cleansing and filling the system with new people from outside the system, was to remove the prosecution from the hands of the prosecutor general and turn it into an independent institution. The main problem of the prosecution remains a rigid hierarchy and overconcentration of powers for managing the system in the hands of the prosecutor general. According to Ryaboshapka, this gives him the ability to control (and therefore potentially abuse) every criminal proceeding, to influence every prosecutor through disciplinary, staffing and procedural mechanisms.

“Therefore the ‘decentralization’ of the prosecution must necessarily take place: part of the prosecutor general’s powers should be transferred to independent bodies of prosecutorial governance (with mandatory participation of external, non-prosecutorial experts). The key role in matters of a prosecutor’s career — recruitment, professional evaluation and promotion, disciplinary penalties and dismissal — should belong to these bodies, not the head of the prosecution. But the current qualification and disciplinary bodies also need to be reformed; they still do not have sufficient powers and independence from the prosecutor general. It is absolutely necessary to restore competitive selection to the prosecution bodies, especially to involve outsiders who could break the caste nature and closedness of the system,” the former prosecutor general explained.

Ryaboshapka noted that the coordination function of the prosecution should consist in countering crime (for example, during his tenure the prosecution carried out coordinated operations to fight illegal gambling business and “black” gas stations), and not in “covering” unlawful activities and receiving corrupt rent. The main issue in the fight against corruption remains political will.

“Did you see safes stuffed with money of unknown origin in prosecutor’s offices or other institutions in 2019-2020 years? Was there at least one corruption scandal on Bankova Street or in ministries? No — it was during that time that a number of anti-corruption reforms were implemented and conflicts between law enforcement agencies ceased. Political will sets the tone for the work of the state apparatus and the appropriate signals are transmitted from the very top down to the lowest levels of management. So you need to start with the right signals from above,” Ruslan Ryaboshapka is convinced.

For his part, People’s Deputy from Servant of the People and former presidential representative in the Verkhovna Rada Fedir Venislavskyi told Glavcom that in 2023 he registered a draft law on mandatory polygraph testing for high-ranking officials (Draft Law on the Conduct of Polygraph Research with Respect to Certain Categories of Officials of State Authorities of Ukraine, No. 10322). Among the proposed categories of positions is the prosecutor general, heads of the National Police, the State Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Economic Security, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, as well as their first deputies and deputies. Therefore, the politician adds, this legislative initiative would be worth submitting for consideration to the plenary hall.

“In the current situation, department, directorate and department heads of the Prosecutor General’s Office should also be subjected to polygraph testing. In my opinion, as soon as the question of polygraph testing for all leaders arises, those who have certain skeletons in the closet will simply refuse and submit resignations. That will be the first good signal for cleansing the institution,” the deputy believes. In addition, Venislavskyi proposes to strengthen internal control over the activities of the Prosecutor General’s Office. Every law enforcement agency, including the prosecutor’s office, has an internal security directorate (meaning the General Inspection of the Prosecutor General’s Office — Glavcom) that detects corrupt and other unscrupulous law enforcers. According to Venislavskyi, an independent and unbiased specialist who cannot be influenced by anyone should take the position of prosecutor general.

Vitaliy Taranenko, Glavcom