Court isn't a show: why lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk decided to vouch for Yermak
Today, May 21, the High Anti-Corruption Court considered an appeal regarding the pretrial measure imposed on Andriy Yermak. During the hearing, the judge stated that attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk had expressed a willingness to vouch for the former head of the President’s Office.
Shevchuk was the only public representative of the legal community who openly declared his willingness to vouch for Yermak. In a conversation with UA.News, he explained why he considers this case political, pointed out gross procedural violations, and criticized the court’s decision to keep Yermak in custody.
The lawyer stated that he does not know Yermak personally, but takes a professional stance, arguing that regardless of his surname, this is a matter involving a lawyer whose rights, in his opinion, were grossly violated as early as the investigation stage.
I categorically disagree with how this is being handled
As a spokesperson for the National Bar Association of Ukraine, as a person involved in bar self-governance, I categorically disagree with the fact that a person who is a lawyer and a representative of the legal community is being charged with economic offenses while a huge number of procedural violations are being committed.
Specifically: they are notifying him of suspicion with violations and publicly disclosing materials from the pre-trial investigation. And I believe they are committing a series of other gross violations that will ultimately result in the citizen and lawyer winning his case at the European Court of Human Rights.
First, under the circumstances we are seeing, they absolutely should not have chosen the most severe preventive measure. Especially when it comes to a lawyer and an economic crime. There are alternative measures. In particular—my personal guarantee as a representative of the bar association. This is, to a certain extent, collegial support. I publicly take responsibility for my colleagues.
On public condemnation: I am not afraid
I have never been afraid of condemnation. I handled the Savchenko case, the Il-76 case, and many other high-profile trials. Yermak and I are not acquainted. But he is a lawyer, and therefore a representative of my community.
And let me remind you of something important. When Nayem distanced himself from his lawyer Oleksiy Nosov, who was detained by NABU, I also publicly vouched for him. Because I believe: you cannot leave a colleague to face a problem alone.
Pretrial detention is the most severe preventive measure. And according to ECHR practice, there must be compelling grounds for its application. But in this case, the person wasn’t in hiding; he came to court on his own and reappeared after the recess. In other words, he isn’t evading the proceedings.
I am generally shocked that a person charged with an economic crime—and a lawyer, no less—is being held in custody without a proper discussion of alternatives.
The court refused to consider a surety
I was unable to attend the court hearing in person because I had undergone surgery. But I submitted all the documents to the court. And the court should have summoned me, heard me out, explained Yermak’s rights, and given me the opportunity to justify the bail. The court did not do this.
It is obvious that, given the public outcry, the court would not have wanted to grant simple bail or a bond. But the very fact that a representative of the bar association is vouching for his colleague already indicates the absence of risk.
The court forgot about the military
This is a very important point. The judges did not even consider the fact that Yermak represents military personnel as part of the “Lawyer Plus” project. They are detaining the lawyer, and tomorrow the military personnel will be unable to receive legal assistance.
In other words, with its decision, the court has jeopardized the right to defense of Ukrainian military personnel. And all this—despite the availability of alternative preventive measures.
Court is not a show
Court is not a show. And this has been forced upon us by the “active unemployed,” who have turned court proceedings into a spectacle. Court is like surgery. There is a protocol, and you follow it. As soon as they start drawing tattoos instead of making surgical stitches—patients die on the operating table.
That is exactly what is happening with the courts right now. The verdict has already been handed down on Telegram channels. And this is a very dangerous situation. If some half-baked lawmaker were to introduce a bill today declaring that a verdict on a Telegram channel is legal, they would probably already be shooting people.
This is a political matter. One hundred percent
Political. One hundred percent political. This is media hype and a public witch hunt. I don’t care if it’s Yermak or someone else. What I care about is that the process be the same for everyone. I’m certain that procedurally, the prosecution has already lost. The media hype they needed for publicity has nullified any procedural success in this case.
It could have been a completely different charge
The case could have been classified differently. How? Very simply—fraud. And that doesn’t fall under NABU’s jurisdiction. I’ll tell you more: we don’t even see any victims. No one has claimed that their funds were taken. There is no clear evidence. And against this backdrop, a huge media frenzy is being created.
Telegram channels cannot run the country
The information campaign surrounding this case is a dangerous trend. It’s very thin ice when Telegram channels run the country. I believe that if you want to prosecute someone, do so according to the law. No shows, no campaigns, no public trials. Because tomorrow, anyone could find themselves in Yermak’s place. Even those judges who are making these decisions today.
As a reminder, the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court reviewed an appeal against the pretrial measure imposed on former Head of the President’s Office Andriy Yermak. Following the review, the court upheld the decision. Yermak had challenged the pretrial measure previously imposed on him.
