On 19 August, Ukraine's anti-corruption investigators searched premises linked to MPs and senior officials in Ukraine’s presidential administration. Iryna Mudra, then deputy head of the presidential office, was dismissed shortly after on the same day.
Iryna Mudra later confirmed that she had received a notice of suspicion and said she was cooperating with investigators. NABU and SAPO say the wider case concerns an alleged network involved in corporate raiding and laundering UAH 150 million to post bail in another corruption case.
These are serious allegations. They warrant a full, independent investigation and, if wrongdoing is proved in court, accountability.
But taking a case seriously does not mean rushing to judgment. A search is a step in an investigation, not a verdict. Documents and testimony, whether compelling, incomplete or contested, must still be properly tested. The politics of instant guilt begins when those distinctions are ignored, and a live investigation is allowed to erase everything that came before it.
That matters in this case: well before the investigation, European and Ukrainian institutions had documented Iryna Mudra's role in developing the Special Tribunal and compensation mechanisms for Ukraine. Those contributions do not answer the allegations, but they belong in the story from the outset.
This distinction matters because Europe is watching Ukraine through the lens of accession. In June, the EU and Ukraine opened negotiations on the fundamentals cluster, covering the rule of law, fundamental rights and democratic institutions. A high-level investigation need not be read as evidence that Ukraine has failed that test. Anti-corruption bodies able to reach into the presidential office may instead demonstrate that the state can test its own centres of power. The real measure is whether investigators remain independent, the defence is heard and a court decides on evidence.
Europe cannot demand anti-corruption enforcement and then discard the presumption of innocence. Article 48 of the EU Charter says that everyone charged must be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. NABU's statement recalls the same guarantee in Article 62 of Ukraine's Constitution. The presumption of innocence is not a favour to the powerful. It is the discipline that makes accountability legitimate. Without it, headlines become substitutes for law.
Political responsibility is different from criminal guilt. Removing a senior official, or choosing to step aside, can protect public trust and the integrity of an investigation. But leaving office is not the same as being erased from the public record. Earlier achievements cannot acquit anyone, and later allegations cannot retrospectively make those achievements disappear. Keeping both facts visible is not a contradiction. It is accuracy.
Instant guilt also distorts institutional history. Public achievements are built by teams across governments and organisations. When one participant is accused, there is a temptation to behave as though her contribution never existed. That may feel convenient, but it deprives institutions of an honest account of how agreements were assembled and progress made.
Credit and scrutiny can coexist
Long before this case, the institutional record placed Iryna Mudra in the middle of Ukraine's effort to build accountability for Russia's aggression. She led Ukraine's delegation at the 11th Core Group meeting, when negotiators agreed on a general concept and moved on to draft legal texts for a Special Tribunal. In May 2025, she co-delivered Ukraine's formal request to the Council of Europe; the bilateral agreement establishing the tribunal was signed the following month.
By May 2026, 36 countries and the EU had backed its management framework. In April 2026, a speaker in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe explicitly thanked Iryna Mudra and Anton Korynevych for their dedication and leadership. That recognition matters because it predates the present allegations. It is not a character verdict; it is evidence of work performed.
The compensation record is concrete too. Iryna Mudra represented Ukraine in the Conference of Participants when the Register of Damage opened for claims in April 2024, and Register records show her presenting Ukraine's proposed categories of claims. She also led Ukraine's delegation at the final preparatory meeting for an International Claims Commission.
The convention providing its legal basis opened for signature in December 2025. By June 2026, the Register had received more than 160,000 claims and recorded more than 45,000.
None of this belongs to one person. It is the work of Ukrainian institutions, partner governments, lawyers and international organisations. But collective achievement does not require individual contributions to be forgotten. Giving credit where it is due does not turn achievement into a shield against investigation. It protects the achievements themselves. The Special Tribunal, the Register and the emerging Claims Commission depend on sustained diplomatic confidence, institutional memory and political momentum.
If a live case is allowed to cast retrospective suspicion over everything associated with an accused official, those projects can be overshadowed precisely when they need to be carried forward. That would serve neither accountability nor the victims for whom these mechanisms were built.
Europe must therefore hold two truths at once. The allegations against Iryna Mudra require full scrutiny, and her documented contribution to Ukraine's accountability architecture remains part of the record.
The rule of law requires guilt to be personal, proved and bounded by evidence; it does not spread backwards into every earlier achievement or outwards to every institution involved.
Europe should resist the politics of instant guilt. Let investigators investigate and courts judge. In the meantime, give credit where credit is due and remember what has been built. Preserving that honest record protects the credibility of Europe's own principles, the achievements already secured and Ukraine's ability to carry them forward.
Author’s note: My interest in this case is informed by more than three decades of engagement with Ukraine. In the 1990s, I worked with a Kyïv-based office of the EU TACIS Programme for three years with Ukrainian MPs and civil society representatives on environmental issues. Since then, I am I regular contact with Ukraine officials and civil society. Furthermore, in the early years of this century, I organised with the NABU two conferences in the European Parliament on good governance.
