{"id":31024,"date":"2025-08-19T09:14:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-19T09:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/?p=31024"},"modified":"2025-08-18T23:18:20","modified_gmt":"2025-08-18T23:18:20","slug":"kazakhstan-court-hears-arguments-in-radio-azattyk-accreditation-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/news-feed\/kazakhstan-court-hears-arguments-in-radio-azattyk-accreditation-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Kazakhstan Court Hears Arguments in ‘Radio Azattyk’ Accreditation Dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Astana, Kazakhstan<\/strong> \u2013 A significant legal battle unfolded on 18 August 2025, as the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana heard closing arguments in the lawsuit filed by “Radio Azattyk” (RFE\/RL-Kazakhstan) against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Kazakhstan. The media outlet is challenging the MFA’s decision to deny accreditation to its journalists, a move that has drawn international criticism. The court is set to announce its decision on 19 August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments from “Azattyk”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Representing “Azattyk”, lawyer Liliya Chausova argued that the MFA itself was responsible for the delay<\/strong> in reviewing applications for accreditation renewal. She emphasised that “Azattyk” journalists continued their professional work during this period, and the responsibility for the delay lies with the ministry, not the editorial staff<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key points raised by “Azattyk”‘s legal team, supported by the Legal Media Centre fund, include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Accreditation for “Azattyk” journalists expired in April, and they had submitted renewal applications two months in advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 The MFA extended the review period by two months, stating that “factual circumstances need to be established”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 No official, motivated refusal decision has been provided to either the court or “Azattyk” to date<\/strong>, meaning the lawsuit challenges the MFA’s actions rather than a specific document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Chausova asserted that the extension of the review period was unlawful and a deliberate tactic to delay<\/strong>. She argued that the absence of accreditation should not prevent citizens of Kazakhstan, who are employed by “Azattyk”, from carrying out their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 “Azattyk” lawyers also questioned the MFA’s interpretation of “foreign journalist,” arguing that it should not apply to Kazakh citizens working for foreign media<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 While accreditation rules require journalists to submit publications from the six months prior to their application, the MFA, according to “Azattyk”, lacks a clear legal basis for checking publications created during<\/em> the waiting period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 “Azattyk” has requested the court to declare the MFA’s refusal unjustified and to compel the ministry to issue permanent accreditation to the seven journalists, noting that no violations were found in their publications over a six-month period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MFA’s Defence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, Asel Mamasheva, representing the MFA, maintained that the “Azattyk” journalists violated the law by continuing to work without accreditation<\/strong> during the period while their applications were under review. She attributed the delay in reviewing applications to a “large quantity” of submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The MFA’s position highlighted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 A check revealed that journalists had published materials without proper accreditation during the two-month extension period for their applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 The head of “Azattyk”‘s Almaty office was also denied accreditation for failing to ensure that their employees adhered to legal requirements regarding publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Mamasheva stated that the MFA is permitted to review a journalist’s publications for up to a year prior to the application, as well as during the waiting period for a decision, especially if there were prior legal violations or if the previous accreditation was issued for a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Regarding the lack of specific legal norms for the duration of publication review, Mamasheva conceded that while submission for six months is required, the period the MFA checks<\/em> is not explicitly defined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Meyram Mutashev of the MFA’s press service confirmed that the denial of accreditation is indefinite, though journalists may reapply<\/strong>. He added that even if a publication is removed, the fact of the violation remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broader Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This lawsuit follows “Azattyk”‘s initial filing in July, after seven employees were denied accreditation, a number that has since grown to 16. The MFA has previously rejected a proposal for reconciliation<\/strong> with “Azattyk”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International human rights and press freedom organisations have condemned Kazakhstan’s actions. Human Rights Watch<\/strong> characterised the MFA’s refusal as a “blatant attack on the media<\/strong>“, while the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)<\/strong> described it as an “assault on press freedom and the right of journalists to carry out their professional activities<\/strong>“. This situation is not unprecedented, as the MFA had previously withheld or failed to renew accreditation for 36 “Azattyk” journalists between 2022 and spring 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court’s decision, expected on 19 August, will be closely watched by media organisations and human rights advocates, as it could have significant implications for press freedom and journalistic practice in Kazakhstan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Astana, Kazakhstan \u2013 A significant legal battle unfolded on 18 August 2025, as the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana heard closing arguments in the lawsuit filed by “Radio Azattyk” (RFE\/RL-Kazakhstan) against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Kazakhstan. The media outlet is challenging the MFA’s decision to deny accreditation to its journalists, a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":31025,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-feed"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31024"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31026,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31024\/revisions\/31026"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}