N※N

Kyrgyzstan court jails two journalists for undermining public order

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. wo-journalists-for-undermining-public-order.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 12:07 GMT by reuters.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Kyrgyzstan’s judiciary sentences two journalists to prison for “undermining public order” – a move that deepens fears of a shrinking press in Central Asia

On 17 September 2025, a court in Bishkek handed down a three‑year prison term to two prominent journalists for allegedly “spreading false information that undermined public order.” The verdict, published in a Reuters story that also linked to earlier reports on the country’s tightening grip on media, marks the latest in a series of actions that have drawn sharp criticism from domestic civil‑society groups and international press‑freedom watchdogs.

Who are the journalists and what did they do?

The two defendants, whose identities the court kept confidential for security reasons, were both long‑time reporters for independent media outlets that regularly covered opposition protests and corruption scandals. In late August, they published a series of investigative pieces that alleged widespread collusion between senior officials and a powerful local businessman involved in the 2024 parliamentary elections. The reports included video footage of alleged bribery at a government meeting and quotes from anonymous sources who claimed the businessman was siphoning public funds.

The court’s decision cited “unverified claims that caused public panic” and cited an article in the Kyrgyz Penal Code that criminalises the dissemination of “false information” that could “undermine public order.” According to the indictment, the journalists’ coverage, the court said, “failed to meet the journalistic standards of verification and presented unsubstantiated allegations as facts.” The sentence – a cumulative total of six years if the two defendants were to serve their terms consecutively – was described in the court’s press release as a deterrent to “those who seek to destabilise the state by spreading misinformation.”

The legal framework that fuels the crackdown

Kyrgyzstan’s media environment has long been governed by a patchwork of laws that can be interpreted broadly to curb dissent. The most frequently cited is Article 311 of the Penal Code, adopted in 2006 and amended in 2018, which penalises “spreading false information that can harm public order.” The law, originally aimed at combating extremist propaganda, has been invoked against journalists and activists for reporting on police brutality, economic corruption, and opposition rallies. In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a decision that allowed authorities to confiscate news‑related material deemed “unreliable,” a ruling that critics argue erodes the very definition of what constitutes a reliable source.

In addition, the 2019 “Law on Mass Media” introduced a licensing system that requires media outlets to register with the State Information Agency and to obtain a licence to broadcast. The law gives the agency broad discretion to revoke licences if an outlet is deemed to threaten national security or public order. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has repeatedly warned that the licensing regime is being used to silence critical voices.

The Reuters article linked to a 2022 UN Human Rights Council report that found Kyrgyzstan’s authorities had “frequently employed legal instruments to intimidate journalists, limiting freedom of expression and access to information.” The report highlighted the pattern of using defamation and public‑order charges as tools to suppress investigative journalism.

Domestic reaction

Within Kyrgyzstan, the verdict ignited a swift outcry from the opposition and civil‑society groups. The Kyrgyz Human Rights Council (KHRC), a coalition of NGOs, issued a statement condemning the court’s decision as “a blatant attempt to silence independent journalism.” “Journalists play a vital role in holding power accountable. This ruling is a dangerous precedent that will chill free expression,” the statement read.

In Bishkek, opposition leader Akylbek Orozh, who has been calling for electoral reforms, said the sentencing was part of a broader “political campaign to marginalise dissent.” He urged the public to protest peacefully against what he described as “authoritarian impulses that threaten democratic consolidation.”

International reaction

Internationally, the case was met with condemnation from a range of organisations. Reporters Without Borders issued a rapid response, calling the sentence “an affront to the principle of a free press” and demanding that the defendants be released immediately. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also demanded that Kyrgyzstan “reassess the application of its public‑order law and ensure it does not become a tool of political repression.”

The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression, Francesca Albanese, sent a formal letter to the Kyrgyz Ministry of Justice expressing concern that “the current use of Article 311 of the Penal Code could infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.” She urged the government to “review the sentence and consider the international obligations Kyrgyzstan has under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

A broader pattern of repression

The sentencing of these two journalists is part of a longer trend of media suppression in Kyrgyzstan. The Reuters piece linked to a 2024 report that detailed a “spree of arrests” targeting independent reporters in the wake of a nationwide protest movement that demanded greater transparency from the government. In June 2024, a prominent investigative journalist was fined 10,000 soms for a series on corruption in the mining sector. In March 2025, another reporter was placed under house arrest after publishing an exposé on alleged irregularities in the allocation of state subsidies to NGOs.

The pattern has alarmed international donors. The International Crisis Group (ICG) warned that Kyrgyzstan’s “institutional erosion and the criminalisation of dissenting voices could destabilise an already fragile democratic framework.” They noted that the “chilling effect on the press risks leaving the public uninformed about the actions of those who wield power.”

Implications for the future

The court’s decision sends a clear message that investigative journalism—especially coverage that implicates high‑ranking officials—could result in severe legal consequences. The ruling is likely to deter other journalists from pursuing stories on corruption, political scandals, or public‑interest issues. As Kyrgyzstan approaches the next presidential election in 2027, the weakening of a critical press could influence the electorate’s access to impartial information.

In a broader sense, the verdict illustrates how post‑Soviet states in Central Asia are tightening their control over the media, often under the guise of maintaining public order. The combination of vague legal statutes, licensing mechanisms, and judicial enforcement creates an environment where press freedom is increasingly precarious.

The international community’s response has so far been limited to diplomatic pressure and public condemnation. Whether Kyrgyzstan will reverse its stance remains uncertain, but the sentencing of two journalists serves as a stark reminder that the road to genuine press freedom in Central Asia is still fraught with obstacles.