The Azerbaijani parliament is moving to further tighten its controversial “Media Law,” which has already drawn significant local and international criticism. A new package of amendments, discussed in the Milli Majlis, was adopted in its first reading on July 4, 2025, signaling an expansion of requirements for media entities operating within the country.
The current “Media Law” was initially adopted by the Azerbaijani parliament in 2021 and signed into law by the President in early 2022. Its introduction was met with protests from numerous journalists and experts who argued that its provisions, particularly those related to a media register, aimed to control independent journalists and media organizations. Despite these concerns, parliamentary majority at the time dismissed such views as unfounded.
The proposed amendments introduce several new and expanded requirements impacting both local and foreign media:
Naming Conventions: A new Article 62.6 stipulates that media entities’ names must not be identical or similar to others. Furthermore, names must not contain expressions that contradict public order, morality, or ethics, or that could mislead users.
Media Register Enforcement: Print media entities not listed in the official Media Register will be prohibited from publishing. Those found operating without registration face fines of up to 5,000 manats.
News Agency Requirements: New stringent criteria are set for news agencies. They must now hold agreements with at least 20 other media outlets for information dissemination and have journalists accredited in a minimum of five foreign countries.
Foreign Media Oversight: Additional requirements have been established specifically for foreign media organizations operating in Azerbaijan.
Prevention of Fake Information: The new draft also incorporates a legislative requirement to prevent the publication of fake information in the media.
Journalist Rovshan Hajibeyli has voiced strong criticism against the proposed changes, asserting that they will further stifle media freedom. He argues that the authorities, who already finance many local newspapers, agencies, and websites, are now directly interfering with journalistic independence by imposing limits on content, akin to utility restrictions.
Hajibeyli points out a contradiction between the proposed amendments and Article 5 of the existing “Media Law,” which explicitly guarantees “creative and editorial independence.” He states, “However, these bodies, whose ‘creative and editorial independence’ rights are legally recognized, are now being subjected to prohibitions on what and how to write, along with requirements on how much information to write. In such a situation, it doesn’t matter whether any amendments are made to the Media Law or not.”
He further suggests that the problem of press freedom was “solved once and for all” with the “reactionary changes” in 2021, pushing the free press into a corner. Hajibeyli believes the new prohibitions indicate a continued need for control, orchestrated by the Presidential Administration through the MEDIA Agency.
Regarding the justification for the name similarity rule—alleged appeals from media entities about brand misuse—Hajibeyli dismisses this as “entirely fabricated.” He challenges the lack of public disclosure of such appeals, stating, “It would be convincing if the appeals and proposals of those entities were made public, with concrete names and proposals. There’s no such thing.” He contends that the Presidential Administration prepared the amendments and sent them to the Milli Majlis, which he describes as “formed through fraudulent elections,” with the Human Rights Committee tasked with a “formal discussion” before a swift adoption.
Hajibeyli also highlights the provision against fake information as particularly concerning, noting its belated introduction. He argues that if such a provision had been genuinely enforced earlier, media resources would not have disseminated “fake information” regarding the arrests of “Abzas Media,” “Toplum TV,” and “Meydan TV” employees on “fabricated charges.” He concludes that those pushing these laws are themselves responsible for spreading false information and have created a media environment where outlets are “subservient” and “write what is dictated and permitted.”
Referring to the fines, Hajibeyli states that Azerbaijan has long become a “fine state.” He finds it particularly ironic that these “reactionary changes,” which he views as violating journalists’ rights, are being filtered through the Human Rights Committee.
Some media experts share the concern that these latest additions will only increase restrictions within the law. The swift adoption of the draft in its first reading suggests that the amendments are likely to become law, further shaping the landscape of media operations in Azerbaijan.