Some were fired “under the Christmas tree,” others lost in competitions: how the authorities are rebooting the NACPFR before transferring it to the Cabinet of Ministers

In 2024 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted Law No. 3585 on the reform of the National Commission on Securities and Stock Market. Most of its provisions, for example those on reorganizing the Commission’s apparatus into the Commission’s Office so that employees would no longer be civil servants, expanded powers and guarantees of the Regulator’s independence, came into force then, in 2024. By the way, the Commission’s membership was increased from 7 to 8 people.

But the provisions on the competitive selection of the chair and members of the Commission, as well as the guarantees for these officials against unjustified dismissal, were postponed until 1 January 2026.

This allowed the President of Ukraine 31 December 2025 to, at the end of the working day, dismiss the head of the NACPFR, Ruslan Mahomedov, and a few hours later — “under the Christmas tree” — appoint the unknown Oleksiy Semenyuk to that position. Who, of course, did not go through any selection process.

Then, in the first days of the new leader’s tenure, the President dismissed two members of the NACPFR — Yaroslav Shlyakhov and Yuriy Boyko — at their requests, which, as reported by Ekonomichna Pravda, they had submitted back at the beginning of September.

So literally in the first working week of 2026 the NACPFR found itself in a minimally operational state — the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Capital Markets and Organized Commodity Markets” (the state regulation law) provides that five members must be present at an NACPFR meeting, and five votes are required to adopt a decision. The Commission has been operating in that composition up to now, reporting weekly on dozens of regulatory decisions adopted. In short, they managed with five people.

There were three obvious vacancies for Commission members and one not obvious — the six-year term of Maxim Libanov, who was appointed in 2018, expired in 2024. Also, under the state regulation law, he continues to perform his duties until dismissal from the post in accordance with paragraph 1 of part nine of article 6-1 of the Law and/or until the appointment of a new Commission member in the manner established by this law.

So, not rushing too much with the competition (which, under the state regulation law, lasts up to 75 days), the President of Ukraine by his Decree No. 443/2026 of 27 May this year formed the corresponding competition commission, and it, in a little more than two months, announced the competition for three positions starting from 1 August.

No selection was announced for the seat of Maxim Libanov, who is “sitting out” while awaiting a replacement. At the same time, that same Maxim Libanov also applied for the vacant seat. And if his result is positive, circumstances could unfold so that there would be a member of the NACPFR Maxim Libanov appointed in 2018 who is waiting for someone to be appointed to his place, and a member of the NACPFR Maxim Libanov appointed by competition to the vacant position. Or, if he suddenly fails in the competition, he will still have a legal basis to remain a Commission member until the end of time (that is, until a competition for the respective position is announced).

It would be good to ask — and to hear an answer from — the Office of the President and the competition commission as to why no selection was announced for the fourth vacant seat. Considering that the need for it has existed the longest — for more than two and a half years. Since the start of the competition there have been no explanations for this decision.

We should hope the competition commission will advise the President to dismiss Mr. Libanov from his well-sat position.

In addition, other interesting circumstances arose during the selection process: the IMF memorandum provides that amendments to the state regulation law will be introduced by the end of the year, according to which “the governance structure will correspond to the Constitution in terms of the government’s responsibilities regarding regulatory bodies.”

In diplomatic translation, this means “the NACPFR must become an executive branch central body, not an agency in the presidential vertical.” The President of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine and the Minister of Finance of Ukraine personally signed under this document that the respective powers of the head of state to appoint members of the NACPFR are unconstitutional.

But that is an open secret; the interesting part is different.

To fulfill the corresponding obligation, the NACPFR prepared, and the government submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, a draft law on amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Capital Markets and Organized Commodity Markets” regarding improving the functioning of the National Commission on Securities and Stock Market (registration number, date: 16067 of 14.09.2026).

If adopted, the state regulation law will state that “the Commission is a central executive authority with a special status, which is formed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine pursuant to the law” and “the Commission as a collegial body is formed consisting of the chair and four members of the Commission.”

Thus the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine will have to form the NACPFR with five persons. At the same time, if the President of Ukraine appoints three members as a result of the competition, there will momentarily be seven (or eight, if Maxim Libanov remains in his “old” status).

Whether the same chair and members will remain in the NACPFR, or the Cabinet will select entirely new ones, what will happen to the Commission’s staff, and how the transformation of a state collegial body with an unclear status into a central executive authority with a special status will take place — the government bill gives no answers to any of these questions.

Just as it is unlikely the parliament will answer why two years ago it was necessary to add +1 to the NACPFR, only to make it -3 two years later?

We will have to wait for the results of the President’s competition, and then for decisive reforms from the government. The main thing is not to mix them up.