Serhii Smirnov disgraced himself, but is running again for rector of Luhansk Medical University

At Luhansk State Medical University, elections for rector are scheduled for 16 October, in which the former head of the institution, Serhii Smirnov, and his prorector, Oleksandr Pompii, are to take part. The contest will take place after an inspection by the Ministry of Health, the report of which, dated 24 July 2026 (year), according to the complainant, records violations of the law, the university statute, and the rector’s employment contract.

The circumstances of holding the elections have drawn attention because of management ties between the candidates and questions about how the results of the Ministry of Health inspection were taken into account in preparing for the new contest. In the Viktuvach (Whistleblower) piece, the question is raised whether the participation of two representatives of the same management team provides genuine competition. At the same time, Pompii’s having served as prorector does not in itself prove that his nomination is a technical candidacy or that the voting results are predetermined. According to information provided, in June 2026 (year) the Ministry of Health initiated an inspection of Luhansk State Medical University. The report dated 24 July, it is claimed, recorded violations of legal requirements, provisions of the institution’s statute, and the rector’s contract. Among the commission’s recommendations are considering termination of Serhii Smirnov’s contract, forwarding materials to law enforcement agencies, and notifying anti-corruption bodies about possible violations by the prorectors. If these provisions correspond to the content of the official report, the key question remains whether the inspection recommendations were implemented. To assess the situation it is necessary to establish exactly which violations the commission identified, whether they are corroborated by supporting documents, what decisions the ministry leadership made, and whether measures were taken to remedy the shortcomings. Without publishing this information it is impossible to fully evaluate how the inspection results influenced subsequent personnel decisions. Serhii Smirnov’s re-nomination for the rector position raises questions about the consistency of the Ministry of Health’s personnel policy. If the ministry received findings of violations, it should explain whether it considered the candidate’s compliance with the requirements for an institution head and whether it took the commission’s recommendations into account during the competitive procedure. The mere fact of an inspection does not automatically bar a candidate from participating in elections if no corresponding restrictions are established by law or by a competent authority’s decision. A separate set of questions concerns Serhii Smirnov’s scientific achievements. Authors of the critical appeal cast doubt on the sufficiency of evidence for his professional publications and his experience supervising researchers. In particular, they demand disclosure of documents regarding at least ten professional publications and three trained researchers that, they say, should be considered when evaluating the candidate.

To verify these claims bibliographic data are needed, information about the publications in which the works appeared, and documents about scientific supervision and the outcomes of researcher training. Without such materials it is impossible to draw a reasoned conclusion about whether the candidate’s scientific output meets the stated criteria. It also needs to be clarified which specific qualification requirements have been established for participants in the current competition. Questions about the elections are also addressed to Minister of Health Viktor Liashko. The critical piece mentions meetings that, the author claims, involved associates of Smirnov and Masi Naiem in the minister’s office. The author also links these meetings to the subsequent admission of Smirnov to participate in the elections. However, the provided information does not contain documentary confirmation of the meetings’ circumstances, their agenda, or the reasons for the competition decisions. To clarify the possible influence of these contacts it is necessary to establish the dates of the meetings, the participants, the purpose of the discussions, and whether there are official decisions related to Serhii Smirnov’s candidacy. The mere fact of a meeting with officials does not prove unlawful influence on the competition. At the same time, a transparent explanation of the candidate admission procedure would help dispel questions about compliance with established rules. Ahead of the elections on 16 October, the issue of the Ministry of Health’s public reporting on the inspection results remains important. The ministry must explain which commission recommendations were implemented, whether materials were forwarded to law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, and whether decisions regarding the responsibility of officials were made. If some recommendations were not implemented, it is important for the public to know the reasons and the planned next steps. The voting results will determine the head of Luhansk State Medical University, but the questions for the ministry are not limited to choosing between two candidates. They concern the transparency of the competitive procedure, the verification of candidates’ compliance with established requirements, and proper response to identified violations. Until the inspection report, candidate documents, and the Ministry of Health’s official explanations are published, a number of circumstances remain unconfirmed.