This campaign is not against anti-corruption institutions. It is for due process, judicial independence, and the principle that no person should be judged guilty before a court has reviewed the evidence.
This site does not deny the importance of anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Its purpose is to ensure that even high-profile cases respect the law — and that society distinguishes facts from assumptions. Suspicion is not a verdict. Only a court can deliver a verdict.
"The presumption of innocence is not a privilege for the powerful. It is a fundamental principle that protects every citizen from the arbitrary exercise of state power."
Core principle of the FreeYermak campaignFreeYermak is a documentary legal campaign launched in response to the criminal proceedings initiated against Andriy Yermak — former Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine — by Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) in May 2026.
We do not claim that Yermak is innocent. That question belongs to the court. We do insist that the state must prove its case through proper legal channels — with verified evidence, transparent procedures, and respect for the presumption of innocence.
This campaign has no affiliation with any political party, government body, or Yermak's legal defense team. It operates as an independent public legal initiative.
Standards required by international law and the Constitution of Ukraine.
Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a constitutional guarantee — not a courtesy extended only when convenient.
A notice of suspicion is the beginning of proceedings — not their conclusion. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and it must be discharged in court.
Pre-trial detention must correspond to specific, proven risks — not to public status or media pressure. The least restrictive sufficient measure must be applied.
Courts must be insulated from political, media, and any other external pressure. Decisions must be based solely on evidence and law — not on public narrative.
Society has the right to know the facts of a case — through official court materials and verified sources, not through anonymous leaks and selective reporting.
Standards of evidence and judicial procedure must apply equally — to private citizens and high-ranking officials alike. No exceptions, no shortcuts.
"Yermak has already been found guilty — he's under suspicion"
A notice of suspicion — or even the imposition of a preventive measure — is not a verdict. Guilt is established only by a court, after examining evidence, pursuant to Ukraine's Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 62 of the Constitution.
"Defending due process for Yermak means being against anti-corruption reform"
Demanding a fair trial does not undermine NABU, SAPO, or the anti-corruption agenda. On the contrary: institutions derive their legitimacy precisely from operating to the highest standards. Demanding procedural compliance is a sign of respect for these institutions — not an attack on them.
"Investigative journalism has already proven the case — why bother with a trial?"
Investigative journalism plays a vital role in public accountability. But media publication is not a substitute for judicial proceedings: it cannot examine evidence under oath, does not guarantee the right to a defense, and carries no legal consequences equivalent to a court verdict.
"He should be detained because he's influential and could interfere with everything"
Public influence may be cited by the prosecution. However, courts must assess specific, demonstrable risks — flight risk, witness tampering, destruction of evidence — not abstract "influence." Automatic pre-trial detention based solely on status creates a dangerous precedent for everyone: today a former official, tomorrow an activist or journalist.
This timeline is updated when official documents or reports from verified media become available. The status of each entry is indicated.
Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) formally notified Andriy Yermak of suspicion in a case related to the alleged laundering of criminally obtained funds through real estate transactions. Yermak and his lawyers publicly rejected the charges as unfounded.
The High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) held hearings on the prosecution's motion for a preventive measure. According to media reports, prosecutors requested pre-trial detention, with a proposed alternative of a UAH 180 million (approx. €4 million) bail. The defense argued the measure was disproportionate and unjustified.
Under Ukraine's Criminal Procedure Code, following the notice of suspicion and selection of a preventive measure, the investigation compiles an indictment and submits it to court. The court then schedules preparatory hearings, followed by a full trial on the merits.
We are asking for the standard that must apply to every person in Ukraine: evidence in court, decisions by law — not by media verdict or political expediency.
"The state has the right to investigate and prosecute. But the state is obligated to prove its case — in court, by procedure, to the standard of proof defined by law."
FreeYermak Campaign PositionThe European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial. Ukraine is a party to the Convention and bound by these standards.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees equality before courts, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair public hearing.
Ukraine's own Constitution explicitly states: no one may be convicted of a crime and subjected to criminal punishment until guilt has been proven in accordance with law and established by a guilty verdict of a court.
"Anti-corruption institutions gain their legitimacy not when they convict — but when they convict fairly and by the rule of law."
FreeYermak Campaign