The court has begun hearing the case of Dubinskyi’s treason

In the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, the reading of the indictment has begun in the case of Member of Parliament Oleksandr Dubinskyi.

This was reported by the Judicial Reporter.

In absentia, along with Dubinskyi, four other individuals are being tried — former Member of Parliament Andriy Derkach, former prosecutor Kostyantyn Kulyk, First Deputy Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Russia’s General Staff Vladimir Alekseyev, and his assistant Alexey Savin.

According to the prosecution’s version, in 2016, Alexeev created a criminal organization to commit crimes against Ukraine’s national security. He was the leader and recruited other accomplices, defining the roles and rules of behavior for each. As a co-organizer, Savin, among other tasks, distributed funds for the needs of the criminal organization.

Derkach, Dubinskyi, and Kulyk, as members of the organization, were to carry out a planned information campaign at press conferences and in the media, spreading narratives of Russian propaganda.

Derkach’s assistant, Ihor Kolesnikov, with the call sign "Veteran," acted as an accomplice — periodically receiving significant sums of cash in dollars from the General Staff of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate through a conversion center in Kyiv. Kolesnikov was detained in the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion in March 2022, and a few months later, he entered into a plea agreement, becoming the main witness in the case.

The indictment against Dubinskyi and other individuals involved was forwarded to the court in October 2024. The preparatory hearing lasted for six months — until April 30. For the next few months, the court could not commence the trial for various reasons — due to the systematic absences of Dubinskyi’s lawyers, motions for disqualification, and so on. The court even instructed the State Bureau of Investigations to find out the whereabouts of the defence lawyers and their current contact information.

The Member of Parliament claims that three of his lawyers were "forcibly" mobilized into military service for participating in this case. Instead, they are being provided with lawyers from the free legal aid center. On his Telegram channel, Dubinskyi regularly posts announcements to raise funds for paying the lawyers’ fees.

The MP has been almost two years in pre-trial detention. However, his Telegram channel and YouTube are actively updated. Dubinskyi publicly criticizes both the country’s top leadership and the judges examining his case.

Dubinskyi uses court hearings as an opportunity to record another video message — a film crew from "1+1" is present at all hearings. Previously, journalists recorded videos with Dubinskyi before the court sessions began. However, then the court security put a stop to this — Dubinskyi is now brought into the courtroom only after the judges appear, and he is immediately escorted out during breaks.

In court sessions, Dubinskyi has been allowed to sit outside the glass booth next to his defenders. However, the National Guard closely encircles the defence table, supposedly for security reasons. The MP himself is convinced this is done so that "1+1" can’t record his statements about what a scoundrel Zelenskyy is.

Eventually, at the last session, the presiding judge ordered the guards to stand aside because it interfered with the perception of the lawyers’ speeches.

In September of this year, lawyer Alina Samarets started representing Dubinskyi under a contract. However, to prevent disruptions of the sessions, the court decided that lawyer Volodymyr Matsko from the free legal aid center should participate simultaneously. To be on the safe side, the court also appointed a reserve judge.

On September 16, the prosecutor began reading a brief summary of the indictment but did not finish.

During the session on September 22, lawyer Samarets submitted a motion to recuse the panel of judges. She reported that she had familiarized herself with the case materials and noticed systematic violations of the right to defence and signs of court bias.

For example, on June 17, in the middle of a court session, the lawyer from the free legal aid center reported that she had just received information that her mandate to defend Dubinskyi had been terminated. However, the judges said they were unaware of this and ended the session by retiring to the deliberation room and ruling to extend Dubinskyi’s detention. Although the situation was not urgent, as the preventive measure was set to expire on June 27.

One incident in the indictment is that on May 19, 2020, Dubinskyi made a repost from the "Sorosyata" channel on Telegram regarding tapes released by Derkach and Kulyk. The next day, he gave a comment to the "Nash" channel about the so-called Poroshenko-Biden tapes, stating that it was treason by Ukraine’s fifth president, Petro Poroshenko.

In 2025, an indictment against Poroshenko, Medvedchuk, and Serhiy Kuzyara, who was an advisor to the Minister of Energy during President Yanukovych’s time, was submitted to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv. Judge Abbassova, who is also involved in Dubinskyi’s case, is part of the panel of judges there.

Lawyer Samarets believes that Judge Abbassova’s simultaneous involvement in these two cases could result in her bias, particularly concerning Poroshenko’s questioning regarding the authenticity of the so-called tapes and claims of pressure on Poroshenko by Joe Biden in connection with his son’s actions in "Burisma" company.

Dubinskyi has repeatedly stated that the composition of the court in his case was formed fictitiously. Civilist judges Anokhin and Abbassova are not specialized in criminal cases. However, the court held a meeting of judges and assigned them this specialization. Otherwise, Dubinskyi’s case would have had to be transferred to a different court because all the other judges had made decisions in this criminal proceeding during the pre-trial investigation.

Judges Abbassova, Slobodyanyuk (presiding), and Anokhin

Samarets asked for the recusal motion to be considered by a different court panel, as she does not trust this one.

— Personally, I also don’t trust Judge Anokhin, — added Samarets. — I’ve encountered him before… Not just about any case. I generally consider him a judge who, to put it mildly, violates the rules and even civil law norms… He disregards these norms!

— Firstly, it’s strange that you didn’t express this position in writing in the motion. Did you have a memory lapse, and now you remember? The court allows for the possibility that it may happen. However, as a defence attorney, you should behave appropriately in the session, — remarked presiding Judge Slobodyanyuk.

— I expressed myself appropriately, — countered lawyer Samarets.

— If it’s considered appropriate within your community, it would still be advisable to limit such communication to your community. It’s not allowed during the session.

— Memory lapses concerning my lawyer – this is inappropriate behavior for a judge. On behalf of the defence, I’m making a note, — said Dubinskyi.

— I agree with you, — said Judge Slobodyanyuk concurring.

— I want to orally add regarding Judge Anokhin. For Judge Anokhin and his wife, Lesya Budzan, there’s a motion regarding the seizure of unlawfully acquired assets totaling over a million…

— This is not related to the examination of your criminal proceeding, — attempted to interrupt the defendant Judge Anokhin.

— So Judge Anokhin somehow came up with a million hryvnias and legalized it as property registered to his brother. Where else could Judge Anokhin come up with an extra million hryvnias if not (this is my assumption) … from bribes in the Shevchenkivskyi District Court. If even the Anti-Corruption Court considers him a potential corrupt individual, then the bias of this court is guaranteed because they are defending their position against law enforcement claims.

— Defendant Dubinskyi, you made a note to the presiding judge, and within 30-40 seconds, you used expressions to which the court has to react… Regarding the "fifth point," I don’t think an explanation is needed, everyone understands that this is unacceptable.

Lawyer Samarets’ motion was considered and not satisfied by the panel of judges themselves. Judge Anokhin stated that he had never examined cases involving Samarets. The lawyer disagreed, saying it was in the Podilskyi Court of Kyiv, although she couldn’t recall which case. Allegedly, Judge Anokhin postponed the session due to being in the deliberation room and didn’t coordinate a date. Samarets wrote to the court that she could not attend the session, but Anokhin allegedly ignored this.

Dubinskyi also informed the court about threats on the internet from "media personalities" he associates with the SSU and the President’s Office — bloggers Shariy and Filimonenko. Previously, in March 2025, Dubinskyi claimed "death threats" from journalist Olha Khudetska.

The MP is outraged that law enforcement agencies aren’t responding. He believes the aim of these threats is to stop his political activity — criticism of the "Zelenskyy regime" and calls for peace.

At the pre-trial stage, security measures were applied to Dubinskyi in the form of solitary confinement. However, he claims that on November 30, 2023, he was taken to a so-called "press hut" with criminals and beaten to force him to confess. There are medical documents about moderate injuries, stating that he had two ribs broken. The incident is allegedly not being investigated, and the MP is not even recognized as the victim.

The court ordered to apply security measures to Dubinskyi in the detention center and send a letter to the authorized bodies regarding the threats for appropriate actions.