The lawyer Ilya Novikov stated that there are three documented versions of the presidential decree and the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) decision, based on which sanctions were imposed against People’s Deputy Petro Poroshenko.
Source: Bukvy
As Novikov pointed out, due to the government’s haste, the documents were published on the official presidential website with significant errors, rendering the decision “legally void.” Attempts to correct the mistakes ultimately resulted in three versions of the decree.
“On the morning of February 13, the decree and the NSDC decision appeared on the websites of the President and the NSDC. Each decree on sanctions is like a sandwich with three elements. The top bread is the presidential decree on implementing the NSDC decision (it is standard for all decisions, only the numbers differ). The bottom bread is the NSDC decision ‘to implement sanctions according to the annex’ (also standard, without content). The filling is the annex to the NSDC decision. All the specifics: which sanctions (there can be 25), against whom, and for what duration are applied in this third document. But we are constantly reminded that this is actually one document. This is what the Supreme Court referred to, explaining why it could not partially suspend the NSDC decision – because after the decree is signed, it becomes an inseparable part of it, and the law directly prohibits suspending presidential decrees,” the lawyer explained.
Novikov reminded that just hours after the publication, journalist Maksym Savchuk from “Schemes” reported that the decree (i.e., the annex to the NSDC decision) contained an error – Poroshenko’s tax identification number had 11 digits instead of 10. It was later noticed that Konstantin Zhevago was actually born in 1974 (not 1957, as stated in the decree), and Viktor Medvedchuk, listed as “Citizenship – Ukraine,” had his citizenship revoked by a decree from Zelensky back in 2023.
“The news spread, and it caused a stir. In 2018, the Supreme Court in case No. 9901/708/18 ruled that a presidential decree does not apply to a person if their tax number is incorrectly listed in the annex to the NSDC decision. A sensation was born: due to a simple mistake, the decree was essentially invalid,” Novikov noted.
In addition, there were technical problems.
“Aside from losing face, there were also technical problems. After lunch on February 13, Zelensky was no longer in Ukraine. Then someone, either by direct order or at least with Zelensky’s consent, decided that the decree could simply be corrected after it was signed,” Novikov explained.
According to him, on February 13, the NSDC Secretary sent a letter to the President’s Office: “In addition to letter No. 411/14-02/2-25, I am sending the revised version of the annex to the NSDC decision… In this regard, please return the annex to the NSDC decision sent by letter on 12.02.2025 without consideration.”
On February 18, the President’s Commissioner for Sanctions Policy, Vlasuk, responded: “In connection with the letter from NSDC Secretary O. Lytvynenko, we are returning the annex… sent by letter on 12.02.2025.”
“Meanwhile, on the morning of February 14, new versions of the annex appeared on the websites of the President and the NSDC. They were not marked as new or ‘revised’ – they simply replaced the old PDF files with links to .doc files, created at 10:37 on February 14. We documented this and immediately held a briefing about the falsification of the decree. Interestingly, no one from the President’s Office or the NSDC responded – neither publicly nor formally,” the lawyer confirmed.
He added that the official interpretation of the events from Zelensky’s team only appeared a month later.
“We learned the official interpretation of the events from Zelensky’s team a month later, in the defendant’s response, which arrived at the Supreme Court at the end of March. For the first time in his presidency, Zelensky recalled the 1997 decree No. 503/97 by President Kuchma, which establishes the rules for publishing presidential decrees. It slightly lags behind technology, as the internet is not even mentioned as a source of publication. In some cases, decrees can be read on the radio or TV, but official publication is exclusively in printed editions: ‘Official Bulletin of Ukraine,’ ‘Official Bulletin of the President of Ukraine,’ and ‘Government Courier.’ Government bodies are prohibited from implementing decrees before they are published in a printed publication,” the response from the President’s Office explained.
“The ‘President’s Bulletin’ published Decree No. 81/2025 on February 14, and there were no mistakes in the publication, so everything seemed fine. In reality, everything is far from fine, but one has to delve deeper to understand what exactly is wrong,” Novikov pointed out.
At the same time, the lawyer drew attention to the position of the National Bank of Ukraine.
“The best illustration of this is the position of the National Bank of Ukraine, which sent a circular to banks about the immediate blocking of Poroshenko’s accounts on February 13, half an hour after the publication of Decree No. 81/2025 on the president’s website. ‘According to the National Bank, the date of the issuance of the presidential decree and, accordingly, its entry into force should be considered the date of its first publication for an unspecified group of people, including on the official website of the President of Ukraine,’ the National Bank believes.”
Novikov also noted that the decree, which already existed in two different published official versions, received a third version on February 15 – thanks to the “Government Courier” edition.
“The ‘Government Courier’ is published five times a week. Neither on February 13 nor 14 did Decree No. 81/2025 appear in the ‘Government Courier.’ On February 15, a file named 35_7960.pdf appeared on the website (created at 21:27 on February 14, 2025). This was issue No. 35(7960) for February 15, and in it, the annex to the NSDC decision looked neither like on the President’s website on February 13 nor like in the ‘Bulletin’ on February 14. The error in Poroshenko’s tax number was corrected, but Zhevago was still listed as born in 1957, and Medvedchuk still had Ukrainian citizenship. A few hours later, the same link and file name led to an updated version of the file – without mistakes, and the metadata indicated it was created at 01:15 on February 15,” Novikov wrote.
He also mentioned that in response to one of the parliamentary inquiries, the chief editor of “Courier,” Serhiy Braga, sent the first version, which supposedly could not exist.
“Two days later, someone noticed this, and Braga wrote to the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada: ‘Due to a technical malfunction, I am providing the correct copy of the annex.’ But it was too late; the third illegal version of Decree No. 81/2025 received its birth certificate,” Novikov added.
According to him, the three versions of one decree ultimately “bury” Zelensky’s defense.
“A decree that exists in three versions cannot be considered valid in any of them. At present, we can assert, based on certified documents, that on the evening of February 12, President Zelensky signed Decree No. 81/2025, which, according to his own words, included an annex to the NSDC decision with significant errors in the personal data of 3 out of 5 individuals it concerned. The consequence of these errors was its legal nullity in the relevant part – including regarding Poroshenko,” Novikov concluded.
Фото: Новіков
Фото: Новіков
Фото: Новіков
Фото: Новіков
Discussion about this post