Expert finds no incitement to hatred in Metropolitan Theodosiy's statements
Despite the findings of the expert examination, the court extended Metropolitan Theodosiy’s restrictive measure.
On June 9, 2026, the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy extended the restrictive measure imposed on Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy and Kaniv in the form of a personal obligation for another two months. The court hearing began with the conclusions of an expert examination that refuted the prosecution’s claims, Suspilne Cherkasy reports.
Attorney Yudin presented the court with an analysis of the hierarch’s statements, according to which the bishop did not incite interfaith hostility but exercised his lawful right to freedom of expression. Prosecutor Vadym Kolomiiets expressed dissatisfaction with the expert’s conclusions and attempted to question his objectivity, calling the expert “biased” over alleged ties to the UOC.
In response, Metropolitan Theodosiy stressed that the prosecution had finally “gotten carried away with politics.” The hierarch noted that the expert, who according to available information belongs to another denomination, showed professional honesty and did not play along with the investigation.
The metropolitan’s defense insisted on the complete lifting of the restrictions, arguing that all witnesses had already been questioned and that there were no risks of influencing them. Metropolitan Theodosiy himself confirmed his determination to defend the truth within the legal framework: “It is important for me to see all these cases through to the end. If I go somewhere and hide, how will I later look my people in the eye?”
Despite the defense’s arguments and the expert findings, the court upheld the restriction – a personal obligation that prohibits the hierarch from leaving the city and requires him to appear whenever summoned.
As the UOJ reported, the court again fined the prosecution’s expert in the case against Metropolitan Theodosiy for another failure to appear. The entire case against the UOC hierarch is based on her conclusions. Due to the absence of the key witness, the hearing was postponed.
