A test for democracy: the Open Data Association challenges the Procedure restricting access to information about defence industry enterprises

Imagine buying complex equipment for your community while being forbidden to know who made it, whether the price was inflated threefold, or whether the factory belongs to a relative of the official who signed the contract. This is exactly the kind of “curtain” the Government is trying to legalise through Resolution No. 1257. The Open Data Association is seeking to overturn this decision in court.

The Open Data Association has officially started legal proceedings against the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Our goal is to annul the Procedure that allows information about enterprises of the defence-industrial complex to be removed from the public domain.

On 29 January 2026, the Kyiv District Administrative Court opened proceedings in case No. 320/4062/26. This is not just a case about registers — it is a case about Ukraine’s right to remain a democratic state even in wartime.

Why does this concern each of us?

Many will say: “There is a war on, and secrecy is needed for security.” That sounds logical, but only at first glance. In reality, total concealment of data about the defence industry does not protect factories from missiles — but it does perfectly protect corrupt officials from exposure.

Without public oversight, defence procurement becomes an ideal place for kickbacks and inflated prices, creating a “blind spot” for whistleblowers. At the same time, the Government gains the right to decide whom to “hide” and whom to leave in the public domain, which is a direct path to manual control and pressure on business. This approach undermines partners’ trust, gives a green light to anti-Ukrainian narratives and ultimately weakens our defence capability against a larger and stronger enemy.

The world chooses transparency

Ukraine is not the first country to face the “security versus transparency” dilemma. Yet global experience (including Open Government Partnership recommendations and Transparency International reports) shows that transparency is an element of resilience, not a threat.

Unlike the Ukrainian Government’s initiative to close data, NATO standards show that the publicity of contractors is a safeguard against enemy agents of influence.

By hiding data under the cover of war, Ukraine sets a dangerous precedent. As experts note, if this Procedure remains in force, tomorrow any information that is inconvenient for certain officials could be declared “sensitive”.

The Open Data Association’s position

The Open Data Association’s mission is to establish transparency as the foundation of democracy. We are convinced that the state has no right to violate the Constitution while hiding behind martial law.

“Under the cover of war, the government cannot destroy the principles of accountability. The trial in this case will be a test of Ukraine’s ability to uphold the rule of law even in the field of defence,”

— the Association emphasises.

We rely on solid analytics (including the YouControl study “Shadows over the defence industry”), which confirms that open data helps identify risks at early stages and only strengthens national security.

A long legal process lies ahead. Media and civic activists can attend the preparatory hearing on 26 February at 10:30 at the Kyiv District Administrative Court. We will keep you informed about every hearing, because this case will determine how Ukraine emerges from this war: as a transparent digital state or as a country of “dark offices”.

[note] We call on the public and the media to help draw attention to this case. Openness is our strength. Concealment is a weakness the enemy will certainly use against us.