The error in facts was recognised as socially dangerous, while a repost was almost recognised as defamation. These were only the last two events when journalists of Kazakhstan were under pressure. When it started, who is behind it and why those are bad signals for the entire media sphere – read it in the material of CABAR.asia.
One post – different charges
On January 30, 2024, ProTenge, a journalist project monitoring budget expenditures, published a post in its Telegram channel to support Radio Azattyk (a branch of Radio Liberty in Kazakhstan). Azattyk employees being representatives of a foreign media tried to be accredited by state bodies of Kazakhstan but failed (the issue was resolved later). ProTenge thought that the absence of Azattyk in the media scene of Kazakhstan was bad because the investigation team of Azattyk carried out socially significant investigations. The publication was viewed and reposted by thousands of users.
Askhat Niyazov, founder of YouTube project ‘Obozhayu’ [translated from Russian as: I adore] about the life in Kazakhstan, reposted the publication. Afterwards, the prejudicial inquiry was launched on a charge of defamation.
“The reason for the inquiry was a notice (to internal affairs bodies – Editor’s note) from MCI (Ministry of Culture and Information) saying that Telegram channels ‘Obozhayu’ and ProTenge contained false information. Regarding Askhat, the police officers found that there was no signs of false information, but there was defamation,” Gulmira Birzhanova, media lawyer, head of the legal service ‘Media Qoldau’, explained the twists and turns of the case.
It turned out that the post by ProTenge indicated that Azattyk had accreditation problems due to new amendments in the mass media law. However, these amendments were not approved, and authorities were guided by the existing media laws. In other words, it was the factual error.
“They [MCI] found that the post meant to support the colleagues ‘posed a risk of a public order offence or caused significant harm to rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organisations.’ The police seriously explored the issue and found that the post did not contain a criminal offence,” ProTenge wrote.
As a result, they decided to hold Niyazov responsible for defamation, which is an administrative offence.
“They want to detain me for 20 days to stop me from capturing floods,” Niyazov, who actively covered unprecedented floods and related issues, suggested then.
Nevertheless, on April 29, 2024, the journalist won the case because the case did not contain any petition from the injured party (a defamation case must have a complainant – an individual), who suffered from damage. Moreover, the ministry of internal affairs that grants accreditation to foreign media did not lodge claims regarding the situation.
However, the publication by Dzhamilya Maricheva, founder of ProTenge, in support of her colleagues resulted in her ‘being taken to the police.’
The case could be settled out of court
On April 24, 2024, Dzhamilya Maricheva was overtaken during an evening run in Almaty by a police officer, who told her about the administrative offence.
“I believe they used technical devices to know my current location. Moreover, they called a comfortable police car particularly for me. Deputy chief met me at the department of internal affairs, and then came a lieutenant-colonel and a major as a bonus. They offered tea, coffee to me… plus they offered me to agree with the administrative fine. They described the benefits of that course of events – as I would need to pay only 50 per cent of the amount!” Dzhamilya Maricheva wrote on social media ironically.
However, she did not agree with the charge: the journalist did not believe that the information published posed a social danger.
“When a person with a large audience on social media says that helicopters disperse poison and spread COVID-19, or a podcast discusses that sexually transmitted infections are transmitted by women only” this is, according to Maricheva, what can be considered as socially dangerous information.
Asel Tokayeva, lawyer of the legal service Media Qoldau, agrees that the publication does not pose any social danger. The defence team indicated that the police had to file a request for elimination of the violation before initiating the administrative case. However, it was not done.
In other words, the police could contact ProTenge, specify the inaccuracy and ask to correct it. The editorial staff would certainly correct it and the problem would be ‘nipped in the bud’. Why then did the case went to trial and why on May 13, 2024 did the court find Maricheva guilty of disseminating false information?
“They will not stop at it”
In early December 2023, the media of Kazakhstan suffered from cyberattacks. Unknown persons tried to paralyse the work of Inbusiness.kz, KazTAG, Kursiv.Media, Obozhayu, and other media outlets. Thus, ProTenge, which has social media accounts only, lost access to its Instagram account for three days. According to Dzhamilya Maricheva, hackers sent massive complaints about ProTenge, which allegedly violated the rules of Instagram. Inevitably, the social media blocked the account. In four years of work on Instagram, ProTenge has never received a single violation message from the platform. The ProTenge account was successfully recovered, after all.
“We linked cyberattacks to our professional activity. We had a list of people and institutions, which could be behind [the attacks]. It consisted of both individuals, like akims, Forbes people, and the state. It was number one on the list,” Dzhamilya Maricheva said.
According to the journalist, the last attack on the Telegram channel of ProTenge happened on January 22, 2024, shortly before the MCI found social danger in the post in support of Radio Azattyk on January 30 and sent a request to the law enforcement bodies.
“I do not believe in such coincidences,” Maricheva said. “It can be a part of the consolidated campaign against the work of ProTenge. They cannot call us and ask for a favour (for example, remove a publication – Editor’s note), they cannot use leverages in the form of a public information contract. The post we published in support of our colleagues from Azattyk caused a stir. The ministry of information saw consolidation in the journalistic community and it could be the trigger.”
“Authorities want to show us that ‘we are watching you’, ‘you are under surveillance’,” Askhat Niyazov explained his and Maricheva’s prosecution.
According to Niyazov, MCI once again proved that it did not do what it should be doing.
“The ministry of information should support journalists, but it is vice versa in our country. They have never supported my colleagues or me for as long as I work,” the journalist said. “Maybe, it was a hint from them like, ‘You be careful and watch your words. We have a law and we can hold you liable.’ I know they will not stop at it.”
According to lawyers of Media Qoldau, apart from Niyazov and Maricheva cases, other cases related to charging journalists with defamation and dissemination of false information appeared since early 2024.
“We urge the journalistic community to support our colleagues. Such judicial cases develop negative practice. Journalists will be in constant fear of prosecution. The administrative offence of dissemination of false information is absolutely unpredictable and incommensurable as we can see it in cases of Dzhamilya Maricheva and Askhat Niyazov. It can lead to the restriction of free speech,” Gulmira Birzhanova said.
What’s next?
Asel Tokayeva and Dzhamilya Maricheva appealed against the administrative offence order and the protocol of detention during a run to court – the complaints will be considered on June 4, 2024.
In the first action, Tokayeva insists that the publication by ProTenge was not a false information. It may be inaccurate to some extent, but information is generally true. Maricheva was illegally brought to administrative liability.
As to the protocol of Maricheva’s detention and delivery to the station, the lawyer appealed against these actions, too. However, the court failed to issue a decree on bringing the officers of the department of police to disciplinary liability.
Asel Tokayeva directed the inquiry to the police to find out how Maricheva was traced during the run. If they used some technical devices, who and why authorised them. On May 28, 2024, she received the reply, “Regarding the fact please be informed that Maricheva was delivered, according to the police blotter. She was registered at 21.00 under article 456 and was released at 21.40.” The lawyer will repeat the inquiry to get the relevant reply.
Based on her practice, Asel Tokayeva suggested that the board of appeal would uphold the lower court’s decree. “Supreme Court is next,” the lawyer shared the plan.
“All the work we are planning is about not making the situation usual and not scaling it to other colleagues. We will take the case to all possible jurisdictions,” Maricheva said.
According to her, journalists cover the trial to show both the society and the state machine that it should not happen in law-based society. According to Askhat Niyazov, the best support in such situations is to cause a stir.
P.S. CABAR.asia sent a request to the police, but no comment was given by the time of the publication.
This publication was funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of IWPR and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.