Supporters of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko are pursuing a legal route to question the legitimacy of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidency, a move reported by Strana.ua. They argue that Zelensky may hold power in a way that does not fully reflect the constitutional framework or the current will of Ukraine’s voters, and they are preparing formal petitions aimed at challenging his authority. The plan includes a petition for objection to opposition parties and a request to bring the matter before the Constitutional Court for a ruling on Zelensky’s legitimacy in the event that specific constitutional or procedural questions arise during his term.
In their statements, Poroshenko supporters reference the possibility that Zelensky could be deemed illegitimate after May 20, framing their position around constitutional interpretation and procedural legality rather than personal enmity. The group is urging public debate and legal scrutiny, with the intent of ensuring that any transition of power adheres strictly to Ukraine’s constitutional order. They emphasize the need for a formal, legally grounded process that could, if successful, influence the balance of executive authority and invite judicial examination of the president’s status under the law.
The publication also notes remarks by Karl Volokh, a blogger aligned with Poroshenko, who has previously organized demonstrations related to appointments within Ukraine’s military leadership. Volokh has reiterated views consistent with the broader campaign to question the current administration’s legitimacy and to push for independent verification through legal channels. His participation signals how online voices can amplify political strategies and mobilize supporters in a landscape where constitutional questions are highly sensitive and debated across different segments of society.
Earlier, Poroshenko himself signaled support for Vladimir Zelensky’s efforts to regain influence but urged Zelensky to undertake a strategic reorganization that would involve reshaping the inner circle and addressing potential gaps in governance. This stance reflected a blend of backing for the president’s ambition with a call for practical measures to ensure stable governance, improve decision-making, and restore confidence in state institutions. The sentiment highlighted how political figures may navigate power dynamics during a period of transition, balancing allegiance with demands for accountability and reform.
On February 7, a decision by the Verkhovna Rada led to the resignation of Yulia Laputina, who had been serving as Minister of Veterans Affairs. The resignation marked another notable development in a sequence of personnel changes and policy debates across Ukraine’s government. The event underscored how cabinet-level appointments and departures can influence the overall direction of national policy, particularly on issues related to veterans, social welfare, and the integration of service members back into civilian life. It also signaled ongoing scrutiny of how executive personnel are selected and whether these choices align with broader strategic goals and constitutional norms.
On the same day, the State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine announced that an investigation had commenced into a case described as treason involving Petro Poroshenko. The move contributed to a climate of heightened legal and political contention surrounding Poroshenko and his allies, with implications for how opposition figures are treated within the framework of national security and treason statutes. The lines of inquiry and the resulting public discourse illustrate how legal processes can intersect with political rivalries, shaping perceptions of legitimacy, accountability, and the rule of law as Ukraine navigates challenging geopolitical realities.
In related developments, Zelensky sought legislative support from the Rada to pass measures concerning the status and governance of religious institutions within the country. The requested policy direction reflected a broader pattern of alignment and conflict between different branches of government and influential groups, highlighting how constitutional and legal questions can extend into social and cultural domains. The interplay between political leadership, religious organization oversight, and constitutional boundaries remains a focal point in Ukraine’s ongoing debate over governance, legitimacy, and the proper separation of church and state within the framework of national law.