NABU reported threats involving weapons and detectives being barred from carrying out an authorised search. Sources cited by ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ name General Sergei Duka. At the same time, the publication reported on investigative activities at the home of Anton Kravchuk, head of internal security at the SBU. On the morning of 4 November 2026, Kyiv time, the security service was faced with an awkward question: how would its own senior officers react to an investigation by another law enforcement agency?[1][2][3]
At the heart of the story lies the investigators’ access to the search site and the behaviour of those wielding significant powers. If the circumstances reported by the bureau are confirmed, every aspect will require an explanation: who obstructed the investigative proceedings, who made the decisions, and why special forces officers were deployed to the scene.
What NABU said about threats involving weapons
A message has been published on NABU’s official Telegram channel stating that a senior SBU officer is threatening to use firearms and is preventing detectives from entering the premises being searched. According to the bureau, the investigative actions are being carried out on the basis of a ruling by an investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court. The post also mentions the arrival of SBU special forces.[1]
NABU’s reference to the court authorisation is key to assessing what happened. The Bureau describes the obstacles to the enforcement of the procedural decision. A further investigation should establish the actual sequence of events and give the parties the opportunity to present their explanations.
In NABU’s initial statement, the officer’s surname was not disclosed. Sources within the law enforcement agencies interviewed by ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ link Sergei Duka to this incident. This is information from journalistic sources, which should be distinguished from the bureau’s official identification of the individual.[2]
Has Duka barricaded himself in? What sources have told our editorial team
According to the editorial team’s sources, Sergei Duka has barricaded himself in and is refusing to let detectives in. No independent confirmation of this specific detail was obtained whilst preparing this article. The sources’ information partly coincides with NABU’s public statement regarding the refusal of access; however, the bureau did not use the term ‘barricade’ nor did it mention a surname.
It is therefore not yet possible to describe with certainty exactly how access was blocked, what demands were made of the detectives who arrived, or how long the standoff lasted. These circumstances should be clarified by official statements, video recordings and procedural documents.
For the public, the question has already been posed: is a high rank and position sufficient for the enforcement of a court ruling to become the subject of a power struggle? This is a question concerning the system of oversight over the security service. The answer must be based on verified facts, including Duka’s own explanations.
Anton Kravchuk: searches at the home of the head of internal security
‘Ukrainska Pravda’, citing sources within law enforcement agencies, reported on searches carried out at the home of Anton Kravchuk, whom the publication identifies as the head of the SBU’s Main Directorate for Internal Security. According to the journalists, the investigative actions are taking place against the backdrop of an attempt to carry out a search at Sergei Duka’s premises.[3]
The very name of the agency makes this story particularly sensitive. When reports of investigative activities concern the head of internal security, public interest extends beyond a single individual’s biography: it raises questions about the system’s ability to scrutinise its own leaders.
| Name | The position in question | Basis of the report |
|---|---|---|
| Sergei Duka | First Deputy Head of the SBU’s Department for the Protection of National Sovereignty | UP sources link him to an incident where he was prevented from being present during a search; NABU does not disclose his surname in its initial statement.[2][4] |
| Anton Kravchuk | Head of the SBU’s Main Directorate for Internal Security | UP reports on the searches, citing law enforcement sources.[3] |
A report by Interfax-Ukraine, published at 09:28 Kyiv time and also citing UP, mentions Oleksandr Kovalchuk — first deputy head of the SBU’s Main Directorate ‘D’ for Counter-Terrorism. The agency reports that searches were also carried out at his premises. However, a single chain of reprints does not constitute multiple independent confirmations.[4]
Why are people once again recalling the searches carried out by NABU detectives in 2025?
There is a public backstory to the current scandal. In an investigation dated 2 September 2025, the Anti-Corruption Centre reported that, according to its preliminary findings, Duka had overseen the enforcement aspect of operations against NABU detectives, including Ruslan Magamedrasulov. The Anti-Corruption Centre linked this to more than 50 searches carried out in July 2025.[5]
In an analytical piece by ZN.UA, Duka and Kravchuk were also mentioned as officials who oversaw the enforcement aspect of high-profile operations against investigative journalists and NABU detectives. These are the authors’ assertions; they cannot be substituted for a court ruling on the liability of specific individuals.[6]
This context explains the public outcry: people who were previously publicly linked to actions against the Anti-Corruption Bureau are now themselves mentioned in reports about its investigative activities. However, it is premature to conclude from this that NABU is seeking ‘revenge’. The initial reports that have been verified contain no documents establishing the motive behind the current searches or their link to the events of 2025.
Both sides of this story need to be examined: the validity of the Bureau’s procedural actions and the conduct of the security service’s officers. The previous conflict does not exempt anyone from the obligation to account for the specific circumstances of the case.
Why did SBU special forces turn up at the scene of the search?
The report of the special unit’s arrival requires further explanation. NABU’s initial statement does not reveal on whose orders the officers arrived or what task they were carrying out.[1] It would be premature to accuse them of obstructing the search on the sole basis of their presence.
Specific answers are required from the SBU leadership: who called in the unit, how the task was formulated, and who was responsible for liaising with the detectives. If there was a dispute over the procedure for conducting the search, it should be clarified how this was resolved and how the actions of those involved were documented.
Staff from different law enforcement agencies may have procedural disagreements. However, the presence of armed personnel makes it particularly important to maintain control of the situation and for commanders to take personal responsibility. The public needs information about the decisions taken on the ground and the results of their verification.
What is not yet known about the Duka and Kravchuk case
The initial reports on which this article is based do not reveal the full details of the criminal proceedings, the subject of the search, the extent of the items seized, or the procedural status of each of the named officers. It is not possible to determine from them exactly what charges the investigation is levelling against Duka or Kravchuk, or whether either of them has been informed that they are under suspicion.
A search in itself is not a conviction and does not establish a person’s guilt. That said, NABU’s public statement regarding threats warrants a separate investigation, regardless of the outcome of the main investigation.
Verified morning reports do not contain a detailed account of Duka and Kravchuk’s position. Their explanations, the SBU’s statement, a further announcement from NABU and the available court rulings may significantly clarify the picture. Until this information becomes available, one should not speculate on the sums involved, the schemes or the patrons.
A closed door — an open question regarding control over the security service
There are already sufficient grounds for intense public scrutiny in this case: the Anti-Corruption Bureau has publicly stated that it has faced obstruction from a high-ranking official in another law enforcement agency. What matters next will be the confirmed actions of each individual involved.
The SBU must be able to carry out its duties and protect its staff from unfounded accusations. Such protection is compatible with scrutiny of their conduct and compliance with court rulings. The service’s secrecy must not become a shield against accountability.
The main test for the SBU leadership is to provide a verifiable explanation of what happened. For NABU, this means presenting the results of the investigation in accordance with established procedure. And for the public, it means ensuring that high-profile names, general’s ranks and the resources of the security services do not determine whose actions can be investigated.
This article is based on initial reports published on the morning of 4 November 2026 (Kyiv time), previous publications by the Centre for Political and Legal Analysis (CPLA) and ZN.UA, and information provided by editorial sources. Details of sources and the degree of verification are indicated in the text. Conclusions may be revised as documents and the parties’ positions become available.