Eight leading Ukrainian media outlets on Friday morning simultaneously released an investigative report by Slidstvo.Info and the Anti-Corruption Action Center that Kyiv’s Pecherskyi District Court had prohibited them from publishing. The outlets joined the effort in solidarity with their colleagues, describing the court ruling as an outright act of censorship.
Ukrainska Pravda, Suspilne, Schemes (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), hromadske, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, NV, Bihus.Info and the Ukrainian YouTube news project Toronto Television formed “Initiative 143” and published the text of the investigation into 143 real estate properties belonging to the brother of the director of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI).
The report was prepared jointly by journalists from Slidstvo.Info and the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC). On July 6, the Pecherskyi District Court in Kyiv banned Slidstvo.Info, the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and journalist Alina Stryzhak from disclosing certain information about the SBI director’s brother’s property even before the investigation was released.
The ban triggered public outcry and statements from Ukrainian and international organizations. In support of their colleagues, media outlets united under “Initiative 143,” named for the number of real estate properties mentioned in the report.
“This text is being published as part of ‘Initiative 143’ — an act of solidarity by Ukrainian journalists who decided to support their colleagues from Slidstvo.Info and the Anti-Corruption Action Center,” the organizations stated. “Since such a ban looks like an outright manifestation of censorship, together with other participants in the initiative we consider it necessary to publish the investigation.”
Anna Babinets, editor-in-chief and founder of Slidstvo.Info, called the step an unprecedented display of professional solidarity. “Our colleagues are taking risks by publishing the banned investigation. If the authorities have taken such a step to suppress freedom of speech against our newsroom and the Anti-Corruption Action Center, what will stop them from pressuring others?” Babinets said. “I am sincerely grateful to our colleagues for this show of solidarity. It demonstrates that we are all uniting around the same values — truth, freedom of speech, and quality journalism.”
Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, said: “This investigation is yet another proof that Ukraine needs reform of the SBI with independent selection of the bureau’s head — in the form required by the EU.”
Background
On June 24, 2026, Anti-Corruption Action Center journalist Alina Stryzhak sent an inquiry to a developer as part of the joint investigation with Slidstvo.Info. The document referred to, among other things, the brother of the SBI director acquiring 143 real estate properties in Kharkiv.
After receiving the inquiry, the company turned to the court seeking to bar the journalists from disseminating information that would become the subject of the upcoming investigation. The application reached the court on a Friday, and by Monday, Judge Serhiy Vovk had banned publication of the information that would be the subject of the future investigation, having considered the matter in essentially one working day. Numerous civic organizations and journalists described the decision as a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech.
On July 13, Parkovyi-2 LLC filed a lawsuit against Slidstvo.Info, the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and journalist Alina Stryzhak after the newsrooms sent an inquiry in preparation for the investigation into the property of the brother of State Bureau of Investigation Director Oleksandr Sukhachov.
In the lawsuit, Parkovyi-2 claims that the journalists are unlawfully collecting personal data and commercial information. The developer asks the court to prohibit publication of details concerning investment contracts, investment amounts, and real estate that became the subject of the journalistic investigation.
The plaintiff also asserts that information about the real estate and concluded agreements forms part of a private individual’s private life and contains the developer’s commercial secret. In addition, the plaintiff states that it approached the court even before the investigation was published because the very preparation of the report allegedly creates a risk of disclosing confidential information.
