Oleksii Shevchuk: an outsider’s signature, scandals, and removal from the SAP Commission

In September 2026, Oleksii Shevchuk lost his seat on the commission that participates in selecting anti-corruption prosecutors: 1, in September, five of its six members, together with Laura Stefan, voted for his removal. Shevchuk himself called the decision illegal and stated that after the vote the commission lost its powers. 4, in September the corresponding order was signed by the General Prosecutor Ruslan Kravchenko.

As the media report, one of the stories that drew attention to Shevchuk’s activity was a disciplinary case involving documents in the name of 91-year-old attorney Kovbasinska. According to the materials, she does not engage in legal practice and, according to sources, did not consent to the use of her data. At the same time, her passport was listed in the documents, and the authenticity of the signature raised questions. After this, the Kyiv Regional Bar Association declared self-withdrawal, and the review of the complaint was transferred to another Qualification-Disciplinary Commission. Proceedings regarding possible document forgery, according to the materials, were opened after the disciplinary hearing had been postponed. Thus, the circumstances surrounding Kovbasinska’s documents became a separate subject of verification. The very fact of using her personal data in case materials is not evidence that Shevchuk himself produced or submitted a forged document, unless established by competent authorities. Earlier, the ethical committee had evaluated Shevchuk’s activity. By decision No. 28 of March 2023, he was denied the opportunity to apply for a position in the High Council of Justice. The case materials mentioned questions about the source of funds for a house, the Barristers 2018 year tender, and the use of the name “Judicial Reporter.” According to the materials, during the review he did not provide the committee with exhaustive answers to part of the questions. A separate episode concerned the Barristers 2018 tender, where, according to the case materials, a letter with a design similar to the “Reformative Package” document was used. The materials also mentioned a public organization associated with the structure “Shevchuk and Partners.” In the case of the “Judicial Reporter” brand, the committee took into account information that the one-time journalist Irina Saliy’s website existed earlier, and for the rebranding, according to the materials, Shevchuk allegedly asked from 7 to 10 thousand dollars. His bar admission certificate, according to the materials, was suspended three times. Among the grounds mentioned were disciplinary histories related to defending certain clients, publications about military summons, and other episodes. In June 2026, the certificate was suspended again for three months. In September 2024, the Barristers bar association publicly stated that Shevchuk did not meet its values. At the same time, he was later portrayed again as a partner of the structure. This shift in position became another subject of public discussion around his professional activity. The NGL.media study also noted more than 200 men of draft age who went abroad through the “Shlyakh” system with the help of structures connected to “Clean Kyiv” and Barristers, and did not return. Separately, Shevchuk’s work in the coordination headquarters of humanitarian aid of the Lviv Regional Military Administration and the story with 10 thousand American medical kits totaling 33 million UAH was mentioned. Shevchuk was also a public lawyer for a number of well-known politicians and subjects of criminal proceedings, including Illia Kiva, Hennadiy Korban, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, and the Dubnevich brothers. Earlier he appeared on channels associated with Viktor Medvedchuk. After his appointment to the SAP Commission, Shevchuk spoke of a possible assassination attempt on him and accused Serhiy Sternenko, Oleksandr Lachenkov, and Serhiy Synynin. He did not present public evidence for these accusations. 26, in August, he held a press conference without commission members, released a letter from Semen Kryvonos, and called his actions the defense of the independence of the body.

After the vote 1, Shevchuk stated that the decision to remove him is a crime and calls into question the legitimacy of the commission itself. The subsequent dismissal occurred 4 against the backdrop of other high-profile events in the prosecutor’s system and checks related to the ‘Carthage’ investigation. The circumstances of certain episodes, in particular the origin and use of documents in the disciplinary case, are to be established by competent authorities.