Zelensky hides documents and falsifies legitimacy of sanctions in Supreme Court case with Poroshenko
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ukraine’s Supreme Court has been asked to review the legality of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s sanctions against former president Petro Poroshenko; court documents show judges demanded the government produce the records behind the NSDC decision and set deadlines for evidence (deadline cited as August 11, next hearing August 19) [1]. Poroshenko’s team alleges the sanctions were applied without legal basis, that some supporting documents were backdated or published in inconsistent versions, and that the decree contained later “technical amendments,” claims which the authorities have disputed in closed hearings [2] [3] [4].
1. What’s before the court: a demand for the underlying files
The Administrative Cassation chamber of Ukraine’s Supreme Court has explicitly ordered the National Security and Defense Council and the Cabinet of Ministers to hand over “all documents related to the adoption of restrictions” in Poroshenko’s case, with the government given a specific deadline (reported deadline August 11) and the next hearing calendared for August 19, 2025 — a judicial request that frames this as a records-driven review, not merely a political debate [1].
2. Poroshenko’s central accusation: falsification and retroactive paperwork
Poroshenko’s legal team and supporters tell the court the decree imposing sanctions bears signs of falsification — two different versions of the decree were posted on state websites on February 13–14 with discrepancies in personal data, and some documents that allegedly justified the sanctions appear to have been submitted to the NSDC only after the decree had already been signed and bank accounts were blocked, which Poroshenko’s side calls direct evidence the sanctions lacked legitimate procedural grounding [4] [3].
3. Government responses and closed-session material: a contested official record
Government representatives have defended the measures in the closed portion of the hearing and described some changes to the published materials as “technical amendments.” The administration’s court representative has asserted the sanctions were based on national‑security judgments, while court reporting says that during closed sessions officials argued the restrictions were imposed “for educational purposes,” a characterization criticized by Poroshenko as politically motivated [3] [2].
4. Legal significance: an unprecedented judicial pushback
Independent reporting and court summaries note that the Supreme Court has previously found the imposition of personal sanctions by the NSDC and president on a private person to be illegal — a decision cited as the first of its kind — which means this litigation could set or reinforce legal limits on executive sanctions powers in Ukraine [5].
5. Political context and competing narratives
Poroshenko frames the sanctions as a tool to silence an anti‑corruption opponent and to protect corrupt actors inside government, appealing to diplomats and MPs who attended hearings; Zelensky’s team casts the measures as national‑security responses to alleged wrongdoing. Both sides have incentives: Poroshenko to delegitimize the sanctions to restore access to funds and political activity, and the authorities to defend an enforcement tool used against a high‑profile rival [2] [3] [6].
6. What the record does — and does not — show so far
Available reporting documents the court’s demand for the NSDC/Cabinet files, the timing of publication discrepancies, and claims that documents were backdated or submitted retroactively; it also records government assertions about technical edits and national‑security grounds. Available sources do not mention definitive forensic conclusions by the court yet about who altered documents or whether specific signatures were forged — the judge-ordered document production is the next decisive step [1] [4] [3].
7. Wider information environment and parallel claims
Coverage from Russian outlets claims parallel legal actions — broadly accusing Ukrainian leaders of crimes and sending indictments to separatist courts — but those items originate in Russian state-linked reporting and concern separate, politically charged accusations; they do not substitute for the Ukrainian Supreme Court’s procedural review of the sanctions decree [7] [8] [9]. Those reports illustrate how both domestic litigation and foreign narratives are being used to shape perceptions of legitimacy.
8. Why this matters beyond Poroshenko personally
The case tests the checks on Ukraine’s executive powers over sanctions against private citizens, carries implications for international partners watching rule-of-law standards, and could affect parliamentary and electoral dynamics if the sanctions are overturned or upheld. The Supreme Court’s access to the NSDC and Cabinet records will determine whether allegations of procedural falsification are corroborated by documentary evidence [1] [5] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on available reporting files provided; no forensic court judgment or final ruling is cited in these sources, and several items (including Russian “genocide” indictments) are separate geopolitical claims not addressed by the Ukrainian court records cited here [7] [8] [9].