Media NGOs, civil society organisations, and the Media Movement called on Verkhovna Rada MPs not to support draft bill No. 10242 in the version proposed for repeat second reading, as stated in the joint address endorsed by the Institute of Mass Information.
The organisations believe that the document creates risks of journalists getting prosecuted for reporting socially important information and does not ensure proper protection of journalists’ sources.
They called on the Verkhovna Rada to amend the draft bill, enshrine clear guarantees against frivolous prosecution for lawful reporting of socially necessary information, provide procedural safeguards against the use of investigations to identify journalistic sources and to pressure newsrooms, review the proportionality of the proposed penalties, and to hold an open discussion involving media and human rights experts.
READ MORE
- Draft bill No. 10242: How to fix the threat to journalists and whistleblowers
- How introducing EMFA in Ukraine can help protect sources, investigators
- IMI director: Restricting access to state registers may hit investigative journalism
Institute of Mass Information presents the full address
ADDRESS
Ensuring register security should not be weaponised to persecute reporting
We, media NGOs, civil society organisations, and the Media Movement, call on Ukraine’s MPs not to support draft bill No. 10242 in the version proposed for repeat second reading. Increasing liability for disseminating restricted-access information without introducing proper safeguards for journalists and their sources creates a risk that journalists may be prosecuted for reporting socially important information.
The state must protect personal data and digital registers from unlawful interference, information trafficking, and the use of data to harm individuals and national security. At the same time, the law must clearly distinguish such crimes from the lawful reporting on corruption and abuse of office. It is this distinction that the proposed regulation lacks.
These objections are not new. Media and human rights organisations opposed the adoption of the draft bill as early as December 2024. On 4 December, parliament dropped the bill as a whole and the document was later submitted for a repeat second reading. The return of the draft bill to the session hall must be contingent on the elimination of the threats that caused it to fail the first time.
The safeguards included in the revised text are insufficient. The latest released comparison table provides for two to five years’ imprisonment for actions in question under martial law. However, the definition of unauthorised dissemination includes, among other things, free-of-charge transfer of information and making it potentially accessible to an indefinite number of persons. This wording fully preserves the risk of the provision being applied to journalism.
The table also contains an exemption for whistleblowers who report information in the manner and procedure set out in Articles 53¹ and 53² of the Law of Ukraine “On Preventing Corruption”. This is a necessary safeguard, but it does not protect all journalistic sources and does not cover all cases of lawful publication of socially necessary information. Not everyone who passes evidence of violations to journalists meets the statutory definition of a corruption whistleblower. Public interest is also not limited to corruption-related topics; it also includes human rights violations and threats to the environment and public health.
The threat is not only that journalists may get convicted, but also that the lawsuits themselves may be weaponised to put pressure on reporters. General legislative guarantees for disseminating socially necessary information do not eliminate the risk of a journalist being investigated and their source being identified. Even if a case does not ultimately end in a conviction, the prosecution itself may intimidate sources, exhaust a newsroom, and chill further exposés.
Martial law must not be exploited to justify harsher penalties for disseminating information needed for public oversight. Exposing embezzlement of budget funds, procurement violations, or decisions that put people at risk is especially important in wartime. Legislators must ensure the liability is proportionate and take into account the actual harm, as well as the motives for and circumstances of the dissemination of information.
We call on the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to:
1. Not adopt draft bill No. 10242 in the proposed version and hand it back for further review.
2. Enshrine clear guarantees against frivolous prosecution for lawful reporting and dissemination of socially necessary information, consistent with Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine “On Information”. The protection must cover journalists, their sources, and other persons acting in the public interest.
3. Provide effective procedural safeguards against the use of investigations to identify journalistic sources and to pressure newsrooms, and review the proportionality of the proposed penalties.
4. Hold an open, expert discussion involving media and human rights organisations, investigative journalists, and cybersecurity experts.
We are ready to join the efforts to draft balanced amendments that will ensure data protection while preserving the ability to expose violations.
The security of state registers and the public’s right to know the truth are duties that the state must perform simultaneously. The Parliament should not pass laws that enable the persecution of those who help society control the government.
Media Movement
Institute of Mass Information
CHESNO Movement
Hromadske Radio
Centre of Public Investigations
Anti-Corruption Action Centre
Detector Media
Digital Security Lab
NGO ProMedia
National Automaidan Association
ZMINA Human Rights Centre
NGO 18000
NGO Prozorro
Anti-Corruption Staff
NGO Automaidan Vinnytsia
NGO Mykolaiv Media Hub
MykVisti
NGO Women’s Anti-Corruption Movement
ZHAR.INFO
NGO Institute of Regional Press Development
Transparency International Ukraine
Bihus.Info
ZN.UA
NGO Civis Fortis
