Chesno Movement: Svyrydenko's Resignation Sets Dangerous Constitutional Precedent
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on July 12 that Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko would resign before she submitted her resignation to parliament. The Chesno movement warns that this reversal of the constitutional process creates a dangerous precedent.
The Ukrainian civic movement Chesno has warned that the resignation of Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 12, sets a dangerous constitutional precedent. Although formally the process followed the Constitution – the premier submitted her resignation and parliament reviewed it – the actual sequence of events was reversed, the movement argues.
According to Article 115 of the Ukrainian Constitution, early resignation of the prime minister can only occur in two ways: the prime minister submits a resignation to the Verkhovna Rada, or parliament passes a no-confidence resolution. The president is not an initiator in this process. However, in Svyrydenko’s case, Zelensky first publicly stated that “changes are needed,” and only the next day did the Rada receive the resignation request. Although formally she resigned voluntarily, it was essentially a legal formality for a decision already made by the presidential office, Chesno says.
The movement also notes that a law passed on December 17, 2025, requiring ministers to personally report on their work before dismissal has not yet been signed by the president, despite the constitutional deadline having long passed. Thus, a tool that could force the government to publicly explain the reasons for the resignation has been blocked exactly when it could have been applied for the first time.
Chesno highlights selective response: when a corruption scheme in the energy sector involving four ministers was uncovered in November, only two sectoral ministers were dismissed, with no question of the entire government’s resignation. In contrast, a rotation without any public mention of management failures was carried out in a matter of days.
Because elections are not held during martial law, society lacks the legitimate mechanism to assess government decisions. In this vacuum, cabinet reshuffles begin to perform an imitation function, substituting for real electoral change, the movement concludes.
