"The very proposal of this bill is detrimental."

Member of Parliament from the banned OPZZh party, Hryhoriy Mamka, has initiated a draft law №10242 regarding criminal liability for unauthorized dissemination of information from public registers. The proposed legislation, aimed at strengthening criminal responsibility for cybercrimes, poses risks for journalists and whistleblowers: investigators may find themselves in the dock instead of those committing corruption offenses.

The head of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, has opposed the draft law and called on MPs to block it during its second reading. According to Yurchyshyn, such an initiative from the "ex-OPZZh" poses significant threats to the fight against corruption. Furthermore, media professionals and human rights advocates have urged lawmakers to withdraw their support for the draft, publishing a joint statement.

ZAXID.NET spoke with the head of the public initiative "Holka," Iryna Fedoriv, who explains why draft law №10242 will shield corrupt officials and hinder the work of investigators.

***

The draft law on unauthorized interference in public electronic registers is being promoted by its initiators under the guise of fulfilling European Union requirements. Are these truly EU requirements?

Let’s examine the draft law and look at the first author. This is Hryhoriy Mamka, elected to the Verkhovna Rada from OPZZh. He is simply the "chief euro-integrator of the country." Among the signatories is Maksym Buzhanskyi – an advocate of Moscow clerics. He is also a 100% euro-integrator. Thus, even when opening the draft law page, there are serious questions.

The initiators claim that journalists supposedly abuse data, but in reality, the mechanisms they propose will persecute journalists. The parliament is currently in a comfortable bubble: journalists were initially barred from entering the Rada due to COVID-19, and now due to the full-scale invasion. Essentially, we have a parliamentary session during which journalists have forgotten what the press gallery looks like. Those who graduated from universities four years ago do not have the opportunity to enter. And there are deputies like Mamka, who fantasize that journalists can be prohibited from covering everything imaginable, including investigations into corruption crimes. Therefore, MP Mamka and EU requirements are antonyms.

Most likely, European partners will say that this cannot be done and that it is an attack on democratic values. However, I believe that the very proposal of such a draft law is harmful. The discussion itself about limiting access to information and introducing criminal liability for it is troubling. It’s clear that within the media community there are those who have faced threats, had their cars burned, but that is not the entire community. Some may reconsider whether to engage in investigations. And then problems arise regarding where to find investigative journalists and how to motivate them. We are already experiencing damage from these deputies' initiatives, as someone might have begun to hesitate.

Fortunately, the head of the Committee on Freedom of Speech is not Nestor Shufrych, but Yaroslav Yurchyshyn. He has also stated that we cannot allow the signing of this draft law.

What "public electronic registers" are being referred to?

We have a vast number of databases, and we position ourselves as a country in a smartphone. It is not a matter of banning the use of a specific database. It is about the fact that this framework will cover a wide range of information, making it impossible for us to operate with it.

Recall how the country lived for several years without declarations and what efforts were made to reinstate them, how much time and resources it cost the civil sector and journalists. Naturally, there will be a battle over each data array. When journalists prepare investigations and need to obtain part of the data from one database and part from another, will they be held criminally liable for this? Well, that’s absurd.

Let me share my experience: when I worked at STB, our filming crew was attacked by a developer. Not because the journalists used digital data, but simply because they came to film the construction site. The developer ripped the camera lens off. This was recorded on video. Then a court case began, and the developer demanded proof that we were indeed journalists, not correspondents. Such cases can unfortunately be lost. However, it is difficult under the criminal code to hold accountable those who obstruct journalists. I am more than sure that when the initiators of the draft law want to impose such a framework, they will successfully exploit it. It will be very easy to restrict public access to information because a journalist may be able to obtain information, but whether they will share it with the public, understanding the risks they face, is another matter.

How will this practically affect the activities of journalists, civic activists, and whistleblowers?

Let’s take the schemes for men leaving the country. Investigating such cases is becoming a problem, just like investigating illegal enrichment. Legislation needs to be improved to account for public interests.

The main committee supporting the law is the Committee on Law Enforcement Activities of the Verkhovna Rada. So if this law were enacted, we would not be able to investigate, for example, the escape of MP Artem Dmytruk, who until recently was part of this committee?

Yes. Remember how Dmytruk and others left: the schemes involved deputies, including "Servants of the People." They were participants in the exit scheme, and investigations are ongoing.

What do the creators of the law mean by "data abuse"?

I do not know what the lawmakers are implying. However, you understand that there is inaccurate information. But how can one abuse data if it is not state secret, socially significant information, and you have conveyed it to the public? If it turns out to be false, you will be held accountable. However, the concepts of inaccurate and false information already exist in the legislation. What does abuse mean? That you knew the information and used it? And because of that, someone felt bad because someone understands that corruption has been exposed?

The law is supposed to combat collaborators and traitors who "leak" information to the Russians. Is this really the case?

We have Telegram, and we all know it was founded by Russian Pavel Durov. For several years of full-scale war, this platform has not been regulated in any way. But now, for some reason, they have turned their attention to journalists. Telegram not only has a multitude of fakes – there is a huge market for shadow advertising, from which the state does not receive profits. All advertising should be taxed. Media professionals are suffering because the advertising market was theirs, but now it is black and has gone to Telegram. So if lawmakers like Hryhoriy Mamka from OPZZh want to fight misinformation, they should start with Telegram.

In a number of projects, lawmakers have started to write that their proposals are needed in the context of full-scale war. They can attach anything to that. Legislative activity is indeed taking place in the context of full-scale war, but if the draft law on information dissemination is not presented by the Committee on Freedom of Speech, and the media community opposes it, is the draft law truly aimed at state traitors? I have not seen any criticism from pro-Kremlin channels. At the same time, there is a cry that this harms the work of journalists.

Investigator Mykhailo Tkach wrote that increasing penalties for disseminating information from public registers to eight years of imprisonment automatically turns this crime into a serious one and allows for monitoring journalists.

Recall the story of the surveillance of Bihus.info, which is almost a textbook case. I have a question: there is an association of lawyers led by Medvedchuk's friend Lidiya Izovitova. And everything is fine with her; no one was surveilling her. There is Rostyslav Kravets, a pro-Kremlin lawyer, and he is doing just fine. But MPs have resources to pressure journalists. This strikes at the entire sector because they want to instill in us a mindset that it’s better not to investigate and not to write. It’s almost like in Russia.

The draft law concerns not only journalists but also whistleblowers. So the law does not provide for their protection in any way?

The people who wrote this law did not consider journalists or whistleblowers. The project initiator Hryhoriy Mamka has an absolutely Soviet corridor of thought. He does not think about how to build democracy but rather about how to dismantle the existing tools. If we have an external enemy attacking and ravaging the country, then corruption is destroying it from within. Allow corruption to