Poroshenko Accuses Authorities of Falsifying Sanctions Decree: Supreme Court Demands Evidence from the Government

On October 6, the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of Ukraine continued hearing case No. 990/80/25, in which the fifth President and leader of the party “European Solidarity”, Petro Poroshenko, seeks to have Presidential Decree No. 81/2025 from February 12, 2025 — enacting sanctions by the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) — declared illegal and annulled. The plaintiff claims the document was falsified and that the sanctions are a tool of political persecution of the opposition, contrary to international norms. Government representatives deny the allegations and insist their actions were lawful. Journalists of Bukvy were present at the hearing.

The case directly involves Petro Poroshenko as plaintiff and Volodymyr Zelenskyi as defendant. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the NSDC, and the Ministry of Economy participate as third parties without independent claims. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate and annul the decree that imposed sanctions against Poroshenko and others based on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council.

Poroshenko’s representatives maintain that Zelenskyi’s decree bears signs of falsification. In particular, two different versions of the decree were published on the President’s and NSDC’s websites — on February 13 and 14, 2025 — with discrepancies in personal data, including information about Poroshenko himself and other individuals on the sanctions list. The lawyers assert that changes — such as different birth dates, registration numbers, and the list of persons — were made after the NSDC meeting. The defense emphasizes that the President had no right to unilaterally make amendments to the NSDC decision, and that the signature under the “updated” version may have been affixed when Zelenskyi was physically outside Ukraine.

“The President had no right to make unilateral changes to the NSDC decision. And the fact that these changes were made after the vote is direct evidence of falsification”, Poroshenko stated during the hearing.

Poroshenko also emphasized that his bank accounts were blocked on February 13 — before the decree was officially published, when the document had no legal force. Addressing the court, he underscored his status as a protected person.

“I must emphasize, Your Honor, that I, the fifth President of Ukraine, the leader of the opposition, a Member of Parliament, am protected by law and by the Constitution. And when the authorities take such actions against me — contrary to the position of the international community — imagine what might happen to an ordinary citizen… People have one tactic — to stall. And so the Ministry of Economy had eight months to prepare some falsification to present to me, deliberately so you could not examine it… On my way to court, Your Honor, I passed my plant. There are 25 air-defense systems standing there. This is the most modern, most effective way to protect Ukraine from missile strikes. These sanctions prevent me from producing and financing”, Poroshenko said.

The plaintiff’s side characterizes the sanctions as a political vendetta and an abuse of the mechanism against the opposition. As evidence, the lawyers submitted international documents, including a European Parliament resolution of September 8, 2025, and a European Commission report noting the inadmissibility of sanctions against the opposition in Ukraine. In addition, the plaintiff filed Presidential Decree No. 13/2023 from January 10, 2023, by which Viktor Medvedchuk was deprived of Ukrainian citizenship. In the defense’s view, issuing a new decree in 2025 where Medvedchuk is again listed as a citizen of Ukraine, demonstrates legal illogicality and haste on Zelenskyi’s part.

“The European Parliament and the Council of Europe have already explicitly stated that sanctions against the opposition are unacceptable. This is not our opinion; this is the position of our partners”, attorney Illia Novikov noted.

During the proceedings, it emerged that the documents on which the sanctions were based were submitted to the NSDC retroactively — after the decision was made and the decree was signed. Specifically, the disk with materials that was received by the NSDC was created on February 13, 2025, while the decision on sanctions was made on February 12.

“The court admitted materials showing that the documents the government submitted at the beginning of this case — purportedly reflecting the procedure for preparing the sanctions — were actually never considered by the NSDC. In fact, these documents were ready when the NSDC meeting had already taken place; they were delivered afterwards”, attorney Illia Novikov explained.

He also emphasized that two versions of the documents regarding sanctions against Poroshenko remain posted on the President’s and NSDC’s websites: the first with errors in personal data, the second with corrections — indicative, he argues, of falsification.

“We now see that the sanctions were imposed entirely arbitrarily, without any basis and without any documents. And it is now becoming clear that all these papers currently being presented as justification for the sanctions did not exist at the moment the decree was issued — they were hurriedly added afterwards, post factum. That explains the numerous mistakes, the publication of different text versions, and so on”, attorney Ihor Holovan said.

Representatives of the Office of the President rejected the accusations of falsification and declined to confirm the authenticity of the documents provided by the plaintiff. They emphasized that the publication of the decree on the website has no legal force – only the text in the “Government Courier” is official. The president’s actions, according to them, were carried out within the limits of his discretionary powers, and the implementation of the NSDC decision is the duty of the head of state, not the right. In an attempt to justify its mistakes, the Office of the President framed the National Bank: on the morning of February 13, the Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine, Andriy Pyshnyi, had already sent instructions to banks to block Poroshenko’s accounts.

“The President’s representative, together with the government, subtly ‘threw under the bus’ the head of the National Bank, Pyshnyi. For the President’s representative, it is now crucial to assert that any presidential decree — including the Decree on Sanctions decree — comes into force only after it is published in the official Bulletin of the President of Ukraine. For them this is a way to avoid the question of why they changed the Decree. But they involuntarily said that the official instruction of the National Bank for banks is arbitrary — that they should have waited for the newspaper, and the fact that the National Bank is introducing such regulations is somehow improper”, Novikov explained.

He added that the authorities cannot align their version of events because of the haste.

“This situation happened so quickly and they didn’t bother to follow any normal processes that they can’t come up with a version of the lie that wouldn’t leak out somewhere”, Illia Novikov concluded.

During his court statement, Poroshenko also accused the authorities of trying to discredit him as the opposition leader before Western partners and said that on behalf of the President’s Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was instructed to convey the justification for the sanctions to partners for synchronization — but after eight months this has yielded no results. Instead, ambassadors provided discrediting information.

“On behalf of the Office of the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was instructed to convey the justification for the application of sanctions to our partners in order to achieve synchronization of sanctions by partners. Over eight months this ‘productive’ work has yielded no result. But the ambassadors in the host countries provided information that discredits me as an opposition leader, as a political figure. They have nothing to provide here, in court, and they cannot present anything there either. Accordingly, no one believes them, and we have a reaction in the form of resolution of the European Parliament, the presence here of ambassadors from partner countries, and publications in foreign media that discredit Ukraine”, Poroshenko said.

The fifth President also sharply criticized the Ministry of Economy for expending resources on sanctions rather than on the economy.

“Is everything all right at the Ministry of Economy? Is everything all right with the economy, with GDP, with the budget? We live in different Ukraines. One is at war and doing everything to defend itself, and the other destroys political opponents and weakens the state, obstructing the path toward the European Union. I don’t want to have anything to do with such a Ukraine”, Poroshenko emphasized.

The panel of judges ordered the Cabinet of Ministers to provide evidence requested at the previous meeting, but as of October 6, the documents had not been received. The court included part of the evidence submitted by Poroshenko’s side, despite the objections of the President’s and government representatives.

The panel of judges ordered the Cabinet of Ministers to provide the evidence requested at the previous hearing, but as of October 6 the documents had not been submitted. The court admitted part of the evidence submitted by Poroshenko’s side, despite objections from representatives of the President and the government. A ruling denied the motion to compel production of the decree text because the document had not been officially filed. A hearing on the merits is impossible without an authentic text from the respondent.

According to Illia Novikov, the next hearing will likely be held on October 13 at 9:30 in closed or partially closed session due to the presence of materials marked “DSK” (For Official Use Only). Poroshenko’s representatives emphasized that the government will not be able to avoid publishing information relevant to the substance of the case. According to them, government representatives are doing everything they can to mislead the court and society, in particular, trying to keep the process secret.