However, “members of the old system” would have greatly preferred to scrap the whole idea and continue with the centralised system. It was evident during the negotiations on the initial PPO draft law in 2014 when representatives of the old system did their best to keep as many powers as they could in the hands of the PG. The same goes for the QDC: with its establishment, the recruitment and disciplinary procedures were expected to become open and reasoned.
It may be said that because of the SGBs, losing the traditional complete control over the prosecution has become an issue for a larger group of players beyond the “old” prosecutorial system. That provoked hectic attempts to discredit self-governance through criticism and certain manipulations.
Such an amendment was justified by the need to implement the VC recommendation (para 118): “…the requirement in paragraph 2.3 that eligibility for appointment as Prosecutor General of Ukraine is dependent upon holding one of the positions listed in Article 15—all of which are Higher Public Prosecutor positions—means that it will not be possible to appoint persons from outside the public prosecution service but a documented professional background in the prosecution system, notwithstanding the potential desirability of drawing on such outside experience, which could be especially valuable where a significant change in the role of public prosecutors is being effected by the provisions of the Draft Law.” Thus, it was stressed by the authors of the amendments that the Law must provide an opportunity for an external candidate without any prosecutorial experience to be appointed as a PG.