What's at stake
The State Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Prosecutor General have confirmed the opening of a single proceeding against Member of Parliament Maryana Bezuhla. The investigation is being conducted under four articles of the Criminal Code, including a suspicion of state treason.
"A proceeding has been opened against Member of Parliament Maryana Bezuhla under the article on state treason."
— Tetyana Sapian, communications adviser of the State Bureau of Investigation (comment to LIGA.net)
Which charges are being alleged
According to law enforcement, the proceeding covers the following episodes:
- state treason;
- disclosure of a state secret (part 1 of Article 328 of the Criminal Code);
- disclosure of military information constituting a state secret (part 1 of Article 422 of the Criminal Code);
- interference in the activity of a public official (part 1 of Article 344 of the Criminal Code).
What led to the case
At the end of August 2024, Maryana Bezuhla published a post in which she accused the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, of allegedly intending to withdraw the 72nd brigade from Vuhledar. The post claimed there was a risk of a rotation being disrupted and possible enemy preparation.
"I have numerous desperate appeals from servicemen saying that Syrskyi is taking the 72nd brigade out of Vuhledar, which has been repelling all attacks there for two years and knows the area well... It feels like he is deliberately destabilizing the front."
— post by Maryana Bezuhla (August 2024)
MP Serhiy Taruta said the investigation is checking whether these public statements could have harmed Ukrainian forces: allegedly, after the information was disclosed a rotation was disrupted, defensive positions were lost, and Russian forces were redeployed to the sector.
Procedure and legal context
On March 3, 2026, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Office of the Prosecutor General to launch a pre-trial investigation on the basis of a complaint by Roman Chervinsky. The Office of the Prosecutor General says the investigation is ongoing, so details are limited to avoid harming the probe.
Why this matters
The framing of the case has two key dimensions: operational security and political responsibility. If public statements contain information that gives the enemy an operational advantage or demoralizes personnel, that endangers people at the front. On the other hand, the investigation signals that even during wartime there are limits to public discussion when it concerns information related to combat operations.
Precedents and scale
This is not an isolated instance in the practice of Ukrainian law enforcement: since 2014 the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has reported suspicions of state treason against more than 3,200 individuals. In 2025 the DBR charged former MP Oleh Voloshyn with state treason for spreading statements in favor of the aggressor — examples that show how the law enforcement system approaches cases that may threaten national security.
What happens next
The investigation must establish whether Bezuhla's actions actually disclosed information constituting a state secret or could harm defense; whether there was intent; and whether there is an evidentiary basis for the alleged articles. The court's decision and the investigation's results will determine whether this becomes a criminal case or another legal outcome.
Experts stress that during full-scale aggression the priority must be protecting service members and maintaining information security. At the same time, society should demand transparency from the investigation within limits that do not harm operations.
Conclusion
This case tests the balance between the right to criticize and the need to protect operational information. Its outcome will affect not only the legal fate of one MP but also standards of public responsibility during war. The next step lies with the investigation: will the statements become evidence that impacts the safety of our armed forces?
