Early on 17 July, eight Ukrainian media outlets simultaneously published an investigation into the 143 real estate properties which journalists have discovered to be owned by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) director’s brother, Slidstvo.Info reports.
The investigation was prepared by Slidstvo.Info journalists and the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (ANTAC), but the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv banned them from releasing it.
In a show of solidarity with their colleagues, several news outlets joined forces to form “Initiative 143” (named after the number of the businessman’s real estate properties covered in the investigation). Journalists have described the court’s ruling as an outright act of censorship.
The Initiative was joined by Ukrainska Pravda, Suspilne, Skhemy (RFE/RL), Hromadske, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, NV, Bihus.Info, and TV Toronto. All of them published the investigation simultaneously.
The investigation was prepared by journalists with Slidstvo.Info along ANTAC. However, on 6 July, Kyiv’s Pecherskyi District Court banned Slidstvo.Info, ANTAC, and journalist Alina Stryzhak from reporting a body of information about property owned by the SBI director’s brother even before the material was released. This ban sparked public outcry and drew statements from both Ukrainian and international organisations.
“The following text is published as part of ‘Initiative 143’ — an act of solidarity by Ukrainian media professionals who have decided to support their colleagues at Slidstvo.Info and ANTAC. Since this ban appears to be an outright act of censorship, we, along with the other participants in the initiative, consider it necessary to release the investigation,” reads the note accompanying the publications.
Slidstvo.Info’s founding editor Anna Babinets described the move as an unprecedented display of professional solidarity.
“Our colleagues are taking a risk by releasing a banned investigation, because if the authorities have gone this far in suppressing freedom of speech against our team and ANTAC, what’s going to stop them from exerting pressure on others? I am sincerely grateful to my colleagues for this show of solidarity. It demonstrates that we’re all rallying around the same values: truth, freedom of speech, and quality journalism,” Babinets said.
ANTAC’s Executive Director Daria Kaleniuk stressed, “This investigation is yet another piece of evidence that Ukraine needs an SBI reform and an independent selection process for the Bureau’s director, as the EU has demanded.”
Previously
On 6 July, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv granted a motion by Parkovyi-2 and temporarily banned Slidstvo.Info, the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and journalist Alina Stryzhak from releasing and distributing the investigation into the assets of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) director’s brother, Oleksandr Sukhachov. In the lawsuit, the company claimed that banning the distribution of this information was not censorship since the law allowed such restrictions in certain cases.
Both Slidstvo.Info and the Anti-Corruption Action Center said that they viewed this as pressure on journalists and an attack on freedom of speech. The journalists will appeal the court’s ruling and seek to release the investigation.
IMI lawyer Volodymyr Zelenchuk has said that the court ban on publishing the unreleased investigation had the characteristics of a SLAPP.
On 7 July, the Media Movement along with several media and human rights organisations expressed concern about possible systemic pressure on investigative journalism by law enforcement agencies.
The Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv has stated that the ban on publishing the investigation was temporary.
On 13 July, LLC Parkovyi-2 sued Slidstvo.Info, ANTAC, and journalist Alina Stryzhak. The lawsuit was filed after the editorial team sent the company an information query as part of their investigation into the real estate owned by Oleksandr Sukhachov, the State Bureau of Investigation director’s brother.
In the lawsuit, LLC Parkovyi-2 claimed that the journalists had been illegally collecting personal data and commercial intelligence. The company asked the court to ban the release of the information about investment contracts, sums invested, and real estate that is featured in the investigation.
The developer also claimed that information about real estate objects owned and agreements concluded was part of an individual’s private life and contained commercial secrets. Moreover, the company claimed that they had to sue before the investigation’s release because the very fact of an investigation being in the works created a risk of confidential information being disclosed.
