© Anti-Corruption Action Center During a session of the VRU Committee, SBU representatives asserted that they lacked specifics regarding the case, claiming it was allegedly with the SBI, which had not been previously involved in the matter.
Ukraine's Security Service affirmed that the matter concerning NABU investigator Ruslan Maghamedrassulov, suspected of purported affiliations with Russia, is presently not under their jurisdiction, and they are unaware of the rationale presented by the investigators for the necessity of maintaining the suspect in detention without the option of bail.
In the course of a gathering of the VRU Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, representatives repeatedly questioned Oleh Holovash, the Chief of Staff of the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, about the rationale behind the investigation in the matter of Ruslan Maghamedrassulov, a detective involved in documenting the Timur Mindich case, for prolonging the detainee's custody despite ambiguities in the case documentation. He responded by asserting that he had not perused the investigation's justifications, as the case is purportedly handled by the State Bureau of Investigation.
“The State Bureau of Investigation,” was the response from Andriy Shvets, chief of the SBU's Main Investigation Department, when Committee Chair Anastasia Radina inquired to ascertain the current agency responsible for the pre-trial inquiry into the case of the NABU detective.
Conversely, Radina pointed out that the SBU and the Prosecutor General's Office had jointly announced Maghamedrassulov's suspicion.
“No, not the State Bureau of Investigation,” Shvets reiterated.
Concurrently, during the exchange, MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak remarked that the State Bureau of Investigation had never previously served as a party in the case, and Anastasia Radina questioned when and upon what basis the case had been reassigned to this body. Both Holovash and Shvets replied that they were uninformed.
Ultimately, subsequent to a telephone conversation, about which the deputies sought clarification from the SBU representatives, Andriy Shvets declared that “the case was transferred in recent days.” Nonetheless, he did not furnish a definitive response concerning the precise entity to which the case had been transferred, merely indicating that “these are the procedural supervisors” (the procedural lead in a case involving a NABU employee can only be the Prosecutor General, whose office was initially associated with the SBU in the case records).
As previously reported, the head of the NABU's regional investigative division, Ruslan Maghamedrasulov, was apprehended by the SBU on July 21 on allegations of treason and was subsequently held in custody without bail. That date marked the inception of actions against anti-corruption entities, and an endeavor to erode their autonomy.
The SBU alleges that Maghamedrasulov and his father collaborated with Dagestan. The service released an audio recording purportedly substantiating this, but the audio, upon noise reduction, reveals that the dialogue between father and son revolved around Uzbekistan . Despite this discrepancy, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv has repeatedly extended Maghamedrasulov and his father’s detention.
