The mayor of Pivdennoukrainsk was found guilty by the court of assaulting his deputy

NikVestiValeriy Onufrienko, mayor of Pivdennoukrainsk. Photo: NikVesti

Valeriy Onufrienko, the mayor of Pivdennoukrainsk, has been found guilty of assaulting his deputy. The official was fined 850 hryvnias, but as the statute of limitations had expired, the court exempted him from punishment.

The Arbuzynskyi District Court handed down the verdict on 9 November, according to NikVesti.

It should be noted that the incident in question took place on 3 March 2022. That morning, a meeting was held at the city council’s executive committee, attended by the mayor, his deputies and other officials. During a discussion about residents’ access to a shelter set up on the premises of Pivdennoukrainsk Lyceum №4, an argument broke out between Valerii Onufriienko and Mariia Drozdova.

The prosecution alleged that, following the altercation in the meeting room, Maria Drozdova left the room and the mayor followed her. Valerii Onufriienko approached the woman and, using both hands, struck her at least three times in the shoulder, neck and head, after which he knocked her to the floor.

The mayor was restrained by other staff members who were in the office and tried to pull him away from the woman. The injuries he inflicted were subsequently confirmed by a forensic medical examination.

In court, Valerii Onufriienko did not admit his guilt. Instead, he claimed that the deputy mayor had allegedly approached him herself with her hands raised and had intended to scratch his face. Onufriienko, he claimed, was merely fending off her hands using «blocks», after which the woman fell to her knees. He also denied having struck her.

The court also examined an audio recording of the meeting and CCTV footage from the city council. The cameras did not capture the moment the blows were struck, but screams and crying could be heard on the recordings. It is also visible how the victim leaves the office on her knees, after which she is helped to her feet.

Separately, the court noted that the conflict arose over residents’ access to shelter, rather than the distribution of humanitarian medical supplies, as had been alleged in the original charge. On this basis, the court concluded that Onufriienko acted on the basis of a sudden outbreak of hostility.

The official was charged under Part 2 of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — for intentionally causing bodily harm to a public official in connection with the performance of her official duties. However, the court did not establish a sufficient link between the mayor’s actions and the victim’s performance of her official duties.

«The issue of city residents» access to the shelter located on the school premises does not fall within the remit of health, culture, physical education and sport, or social protection, but rather within the remit of education and civil protection. At the same time, the division of functional responsibilities between the mayor, the secretary of the Yuzhnoukrainsk City Council and the deputy mayors for the activities of the executive bodies, approved by Order No. 258-r of the Mayor of Yuzhnoukrainsk dated 14 September 2021 No. 258-r, does not contain any confirmation that Mariia Drozdova, as deputy mayor, is vested with powers in the fields of education or civil protection. «Consequently, in these criminal proceedings, the prosecution has not proved that the motive for striking the victim was directly linked to her specific, legally defined official duties,» the judgment states.

Consequently, the court found Valerii Onufriienko guilty under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to a fine of 850 hryvnias. However, he was exempted from serving the sentence due to the expiry of the limitation period. As the court noted, more than two years have passed since the incident on 3 March 2022. The court also upheld the victim’s civil claim and ordered Onufriienko to pay 10,000 hryvnias in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

At the same time, the verdict may have implications for Valerii Onufriienko’s tenure as mayor. Under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 79 of the Law of Ukraine «On Local Self-Government in Ukraine», the mayor’s powers are terminated prematurely if a conviction against him becomes final.

Screenshot from the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

The verdict may now be appealed at the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal within 30 days.

Impeachment of Valerii Onufriienko

On 27 April 2022, a draft resolution on the early termination of the powers of Mayor Valerii Onufriienko appeared on the website of the Pivdennoukrainsk City Council. The draft resolution on the early termination of his powers was initiated by Olena Petrina, chair of the Committee on Ethics and Legality and a councillor from the «European Solidarity» party.

In the explanatory note accompanying the document, she claimed that the mayor of Pivdennoukrainsk had repeatedly breached the law and assaulted his deputy, Maria Drozdova. The Pivdennoukrainsk newspaper «Сontaсt» also reported that, as a result of this incident, the mayor had been stripped of the right to carry the weapon issued to him during the period of martial law. He was charged with assaulting Drozdova in the summer of 2022. At the same time, members of the Pivdennoukrainsk City Council deemed Mayor Valerii Onufriienko’s performance unsatisfactory and terminated his term of office early.

In April 2024, following a ruling by the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals in the Onufriienko case, he reinstated himself in office by his own decree.

However, relations between the mayor and the council, which periodically accused him of not knowing the Ukrainian language, of pro-Russian views – in particular, of wearing a Russian special forces watch – and obstructing the work of the council, led to a crisis that resulted in the imposition of a military administration in Pivdennoukrainsk.

Mariia Drozdova herself had also repeatedly criticised the mayor. In particular, she accused him of delaying the court proceedings. Furthermore, prior to the verdict being handed down in the case, Valerii Onufriienko’s defence lawyer alleged that the court was under pressure from the injured party and requested the judge’s recusal.