A NABU detective has been held in custody for 50 days due to searches in Mindiča; his father is humiliated
Executive summary
A Kyiv court released NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov from custody on Dec. 3 after more than four months detained following SBU and prosecutor actions in July; prosecutors say evidence existed of aiding Russia and selling industrial hemp to Dagestan, while Magamedrasulov and supporters say the case is linked to his work on the high-profile “Midas/Mindich” energy corruption probe [1] [2] [3]. Available sources report that his father Sentyabr was arrested earlier, held in custody until mid-December and then moved to night-time house arrest before being released from custody, with defence teams and colleagues framing parts of the operation as pressure on NABU [4] [5] [3].
1. What happened and why it matters
On July 21–22 Ukrainian authorities — the SBU and the Office of the Prosecutor General — detained Ruslan Magamedrasulov, head of a territorial NABU detectives’ department, accusing him of illegal business ties with Russia and aiding the aggressor state; a court remanded him in custody and he remained detained through autumn until an appellate court changed the measure in December [6] [3] [7]. This matters because Magamedrasulov was reported to have been a core investigator in the high-profile “Midas/Mindich” (Energoatom/energy sector) corruption probe; his detention therefore raised concerns among anti-corruption activists and colleagues about possible interference in sensitive corruption investigations [2] [3].
2. The prosecution’s line: evidence and charges
Prosecutors and the Security Service presented the case as criminal, alleging Magamedrasulov and his family ran entrepreneurial schemes involving industrial hemp exported to Dagestan and maintained contacts with Russian counterparts; prosecutors argued the collected evidence justified detention and suspicion of aiding the aggressor [1] [8] [3]. Media reports note prosecutors were willing to change pre-trial measures later in the process as they argued evidence was sufficient but the need for isolation decreased, which prompted the appellate court to change his detention to personal recognizance [1] [9].
3. The defence and NABU’s counter-narrative
Magamedrasulov, his lawyers and anti-corruption groups insist the criminal case is politically motivated and connected to his investigative role in exposing alleged energy-sector corruption tied to business figures such as Timur Mindich; defenders argued the detention was pressure on NABU and that courts lacked a legal basis to hold him [2] [10]. Colleagues and civil-society groups publicly supported detained NABU personnel in court and described the arrests and searches of NABU staff as part of a pattern that risks undermining anti-corruption work [11] [2].
4. The father’s detention and public humiliation claims
Sentyabr Magamedrasulov, Ruslan’s father, was arrested earlier and held in custody; the Pecherskyi District Court extended his custody to December 15 at one point, then modified his measure to night-time house arrest before he was released from custody — developments that defenders cited as part of a wider pressure campaign against the detective and his family [4] [5] [3]. Sources report family members and colleagues said the father’s arrest and the broad set of searches (described in reporting as dozens of searches of NABU detectives) caused personal and reputational harm; specific descriptions of humiliation are reported through advocacy and media commentary, not court records in the available material [2] [3].
5. Timing, searches and the “50 days” detail
Available reporting documents that large-scale searches of NABU detectives’ offices took place on or around July 21, and that Magamedrasulov spent more than four months in pre-trial detention before release in December — roughly in excess of 100 days — which does not match a precise “50 days” detention stated in the query; sources do not mention a 50-day custody span for Ruslan [2] [6] [3]. If the “50 days” refers to a specific interval (for example, the father’s custody or another probe), that detail is not found in the current reporting and requires clarification (not found in current reporting).
6. Competing interpretations and what to watch next
Two competing frames exist in the sources: prosecutors present documentary and witness evidence of illegal trade and contacts with Russian actors; defenders say the case is retaliation for high-impact corruption work. Courts have already modified preventive measures, signalling the procedural balance can shift as investigations proceed and as political pressure and public attention mount [1] [2] [9]. Watch for published court rulings, formal indictments, and statements from the Prosecutor General’s Office or SBU for concrete evidence claims, and for NABU or independent oversight groups to document any procedural irregularities [1] [2].
Limitations: reporting is fragmented and often framed by advocacy outlets; detailed forensic evidence cited by prosecutors is described in summarised form in media reports but not reproduced in court transcripts available in these sources [1] [8].