Zelensky has ‘questions to answer’ about corruption in his government, sacked minister says
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Ukraine's sacked defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, told the BBC that President Volodymyr Zelensky has "questions to answer" about corruption within his inner circle, while stressing he has seen no evidence that Zelensky himself acted corruptly. Fedorov, credited with modernising Ukraine's military and pioneering drone warfare, was dismissed last month reportedly after a falling-out with the head of the armed forces; his sacking triggered brief protests that faded once his replacement was confirmed. His intervention adds pressure on Zelensky over governance and transparency at a sensitive point in the war, though Fedorov stopped short of directly accusing the president and declined to state any political ambitions of his own.
The row follows a money-laundering investigation announced by Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau, which uncovered an alleged scheme to misappropriate more than $3m (£2.2m) to pay bail for a former energy minister accused of money laundering; a senior official in Zelensky's office linked to the case was sacked. Fedorov also renewed his call for wartime elections, arguing Ukraine should not let democracy become "hostage to Putin," a position Zelensky has rejected as too risky, warning a vote now would be "a tsunami" that could split the country. Zelensky's spokesperson hit back at Fedorov, noting he served in every government since 2019 without previously raising such concerns; experts have also flagged practical obstacles to holding elections, including voting logistics for soldiers, refugees and residents of occupied territory, plus the risk of Russian disinformation.
- Sacked minister Fedorov says Zelensky owes answers on inner-circle corruption claims
- Row follows a $3m money-laundering probe implicating a presidential aide
- Fedorov's renewed call for wartime elections has been rejected by Zelensky
New here? Start with this
Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is facing public criticism from within his own political camp over allegations of corruption close to his office. The row centres on Mykhailo Fedorov, who until last month served as defence minister and was widely credited with modernising Ukraine's military, particularly its use of drones. His removal from the post, reportedly after a dispute with the country's top military commander, led to ongoing protests in Kyiv by people calling for him to be reinstated.
The dispute has sharpened following a separate investigation by Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau, an independent body that probes wrongdoing by officials and public figures. That inquiry examined lawmakers and bankers and uncovered an alleged scheme to misuse over $3m in funds, connected to bail payments for a former energy minister accused of money laundering. A senior figure in Zelensky's own office was dismissed over links to the case, raising questions about oversight within the presidential administration.
This matters because Zelensky has led Ukraine through nearly four years of war with Russia, relying heavily on Western military and financial support, and Ukraine's government has long pledged to root out corruption as part of its bid to secure this backing and pursue eventual EU membership. Allegations touching his inner circle, even indirectly, could affect public and international confidence, especially as questions are also being raised about whether elections should eventually be held despite wartime restrictions currently preventing them.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Fedorov's intervention argue that wartime does not suspend the need for accountability, especially when billions in Western aid rest on confidence in Ukraine's institutions. They note the anti-corruption bureau's own investigation independently substantiated serious concerns, culminating in the dismissal of a senior presidential aide, so asking what the president knew is a reasonable and measured request rather than a reckless attack. Fedorov's care in stopping short of accusing Zelensky personally, and acknowledging he received no improper instructions himself, is seen as evidence he is raising a legitimate governance question rather than settling a score. On this view, even a wartime leader should be expected to account for corruption uncovered within his own office.
The case against
Sceptics of Fedorov's claims point out that he served in every Ukrainian government since 2019 without voicing such concerns, and only did so after his own dismissal, suggesting personal grievance rather than principled disclosure may be driving the intervention. They argue that raising elections under active martial law is legally fraught and risks fracturing wartime unity at a moment when the country faces existential military pressure, potentially playing into narratives Russia would welcome. Because Fedorov offers no direct evidence of wrongdoing by Zelensky himself and the anti-corruption bureau already acted swiftly by removing the implicated official, this camp sees the episode as the system functioning as intended rather than proof of a cover-up requiring further explanation from the president.