The Secrecy of ARMA: How Elena Duma Stripped the Agency of Public Oversight

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) has been operating for three months without a key tool for public oversight of its activities. According to experts, this situation is advantageous for the agency's head, Elena Duma, as the lack of control allows her to avoid public scrutiny over contentious issues and poses risks to the transparency of operations, reports UNN.

Details

Back in September, all members of the public council decided to resign from their positions due to systematic violations by ARMA's leadership of the law requiring public involvement in its activities. Council members stated that their appeals were regularly ignored, and access to discussions on regulatory acts was blocked. This deprived the public of the opportunity to exercise real oversight over the management of seized assets.

Experts explain that after the termination of the public council members' powers, the head of ARMA, according to a resolution from the Cabinet of Ministers, was supposed to conduct a re-election or appoint a new council.

Former members of the public council noted in comments to UNN that during Elena Duma's tenure, the agency systematically avoided collaboration with the public.

"Throughout our communication with the head of ARMA, we observed her reluctance to be accountable to the public. Therefore, all our requests were either ignored, or responses were provided that did not address the essence of the inquiries," said Igor Chobityko, former chairman of the public council at ARMA.

Former secretary of the public council, Dmitry Gromakov, added that the absence of a public council allows for evasion of criticism and enables violations.

"Three months without a public council, during which no one (including Elena Duma - ed.) points out her mistakes, likely indicates that she prefers to operate in a dark, opaque environment where, let's say, no one pays attention to the violations that may occur in this situation. After all, what happened during these three months, the public will never know. Therefore, of course, it is always more convenient than leading a transparent project," he noted he.

The lack of transparency in ARMA's operations and disregard for transparency principles raise doubts about the agency's ability to effectively manage seized assets. This is now a question not only for the agency's leadership but also for the bodies responsible for overseeing the execution of its powers.

Additionally

Transparency International Ukraine noted that ARMA frequently demonstrates "contradictory communication from the agency or its officials, combined with populism, violations of the presumption of innocence, and a lack of understanding of the competencies of state bodies."

In the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, they decided not to comment on Transparency International Ukraine's remarks regarding the "contradictory communication" from the agency's officials, and instead spoke about their "achievements" in developing legislative proposals.

This is not the only criticism directed at ARMA due to populism. Earlier, experts noted that the agency focuses more on politically resonant cases involving oligarchs rather than on the effective preservation and management of the transferred assets. It is worth noting that Elena Duma has repeatedly emphasized in her public speeches among her "achievements" the transfer of assets from oligarchs Dmitry Firtash, Mikhail Fridman, and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to ARMA.