By Kuban Abdymen,
BISHKEK, KYRGYZSTAN: On July 2, the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek announced the verdict in the high-profile criminal case known as “Letter 75.”
All eight defendants were found guilty of violent seizure of power and sentenced to four years in prison with confiscation of property. The court also imposed three years of probationary supervision, meaning they will not serve their sentences in a penal colony.
The background to the case unfolded against a backdrop of political tension and personnel changes within state institutions. Public discussion centered on reports of Kamchybek Tashiev’s resignation as Chairman of the State Committee for National Security, as well as the subsequent changes in parliament, including Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu’s resignation as Speaker of the Zhogorku Kenesh.
At the same time, reports surfaced of the resignation of some deputies associated with the Speaker’s parliamentary support group, as well as the arrests of some of the most active political participants.
During this same period, the so-called “Appeal of the 75 Elders” emerged and generated public resonance. It was a document signed by a group of former government and public figures calling for early presidential elections to be considered.
The appeal subsequently sparked a political and legal debate. Investigative authorities viewed it not as a purely political initiative, but as a possible element in preparation for attempts to destabilize and change the government, including under the pretext of initiating early presidential elections. The defendants in the case consistently rejected such interpretations, insisting that it was a legitimate expression of a political position.
Those convicted include former Chairman of the State Committee for National Security Kamchybek Tashiev, former Prosecutor General Kurmankul Zulushev, former Speaker of the Zhogorku Kenesh Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu, former Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Kursan Asanov, former Deputy Prime Minister and former Member of Parliament Aaly Karashev, former Ambassador to Uzbekistan Emilbek Uzakbayev, public figure Bekbolot Talgarbekov, and former Member of Parliament Kurmanbek Dyikanbayev.
The court acquitted all defendants of abuse of office charges. Five defendants who were in custody were released in the courtroom, and their pretrial detention was changed to travel restrictions.
The prosecution insisted on nine years’ imprisonment for each defendant, while the defense demanded complete acquittal. Following the verdict, lawyers for several defendants announced their intention to appeal the decision to a higher court.
The trial was held in closed and open sessions, with public access periodically restricted due to secrecy. The final decision was rendered by the judge after retiring to his deliberation room.
The verdict is considered a compromise: the court upheld the criminal offense of attempting to encroach on the constitutional order, but significantly mitigated the sentence by using probation instead of actual imprisonment. The case is expected to be appealed to the appellate court, where further legal assessment will be made of the boundaries between political expression and actions that the investigation considers a threat to national stability.
Meanwhile, public opinion on the trial is divided, with some considering the verdict too lenient and others considering it unlawful. The former argue Kamchybek Tashiev and Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu were clearly in collusion and plotting a change of power.
They also cited examples of Tashiev’s misconduct as head of Kyrgyzstan’s special services. The latter believe there was no conspiracy to change power, and that Tashiev had done much good for the state in his time.
As evidence, they cited examples of the effective fight against corruption, when billions of dollars in stolen budget funds were returned to the state treasury.
They also cite Tashiev’s personal contribution to resolving the border dispute with Tajikistan, for which he was awarded the title of Hero of the Kyrgyz Republic. However, a number of experts point to Tashiev’s lack of restraint as a politician, who could personally decide the fate of anyone who dared to contradict him, and there are many such politicians.
The judges explained the relatively lenient verdict by saying that “the crime was not completed.” The court explained that preparation for a crime is an independent stage of criminal activity, which consists of creating the conditions for its commission without carrying it through to completion.
The court took into account the degree of criminal intent and the personalities of the defendants and concluded that their rehabilitation is possible without isolation from society.
Probation supervision does not mean release from criminal liability, but is a criminal-legal measure, the implementation of which is controlled by the probation authorities are investigating the case.
The lawyers for the three main defendants—Tashiev, Turgunbek uulu, and Zulushev—stated after the court’s ruling that they consider it unacceptable and will appeal to the Bishkek City Court.
However, many experts in political court cases believe that a review of the ruling is unlikely, as the futures of the “two friends”—President Sadyr Japarov and his longtime ally Kamchybek Tashiev—have completely diverged due to the latter’s fault, which inevitably plays a key role in the court’s decision.
Experienced political analysts also believe that the current Kyrgyz authorities will not allow a review of the announced ruling on the eve of the country’s presidential elections, as otherwise Tashiev could become Sadyr Japarov’s most powerful rival. The next presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan will be held in January 2027.
