Legal aspects of strengthening prosecutorial supervision in the sphere of counterintelligence activities

On 3 June 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine registered the draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning the Strengthening of Prosecutorial Oversight over Compliance with the Law by Bodies and Units Engaged in Operational-Search and Counterintelligence Activities” (Registration No. 13344) [1]. According to the explanatory note to the draft law, its purpose is to implement the Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Reforming Law-Enforcement Bodies as part of the Security and Defence Sector of Ukraine for 2023–2027, approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 273/2023 of 11 May 2023 [2]. In particular, the draft law aims to provide prosecutorial bodies with the ability to effectively ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine in the activities of security-sector bodies, to identify violations of human and citizens’ rights and freedoms, and to monitor the state of law and order during operational-search and counterintelligence activities. However, despite these declared objectives, concerns arise regarding the constitutional compatibility and legal balance of the proposed amendments. According to the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the principle of the rule of law, which includes the element of legal certainty, requires that the activities of all state authorities be carried out exclusively within the powers defined by the Constitution. The author conducts a legal analysis of the provisions of the draft law, its compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine and other normative acts, and outlines the potential legal consequences of the proposed amendments. It is noted that the proposed expansion of prosecutorial powers, without corresponding amendments to Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, may be deemed unconstitutional. It is demonstrated that the initiators’ reference to the Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Reforming Law-Enforcement Bodies is legally unfounded, as this document does not envisage an expansion of the functions of the prosecution service. Other shortcomings of the draft law are also highlighted, including the lack of systemic coherence among the provisions of individual laws; references to norms that are no longer in force; and the risk of disclosing information that does not fall within the scope of prosecutorial oversight. The article concludes that the draft law requires revision, taking into account the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the rule of law.