With its three major sections entitled “Power,” “Money” and “Life,” Karavan is the best selling newspaper in Central Asia. Its official circulation of 250,000 includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, the Kyrghyz Republic, and parts of Russia, and Germany. The newspaper is part of a larger conglomorate that includes Kazakhstan’s most powerful non-governmental television station KTK, Radio Karavan, and a wine company, all owned by movie producer and entrepreneur Boris Giller. In early February, a case based on constitutional issues of free speech began against Karavan, but it now has turned to address additional issues of power, money, and life. Some journalists consider this simply a new scandal, the next chapter in Karavan’s troubled dialogue with officialdom, while others think that this case may determine some parameters of free speech in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The current court case involves former Supreme Council Deputy Serik Abdrakhmanov, who claimed that Karavan defamed him with a series of eight articles in late 1994. According to those articles, Yelim-Ai (“My Native People”), an environmental action group of which Abdrakhmanov is president, received loans of ten billion Russian roubles (at that time almost $20 million) in 1993. Karavan raised questions of how the money was later used. Today the newspaper claims that nearly half the money was spent on cars, office repairs, housing, travel, and receptions unrelated to the ecology, and for Abdrakhmanov’s personal benefit.
Cases involving “Honor and dignity” (comparable to American libel or defamation) have no statute of limitations in Kazakhstan. “Honor and dignity” are mentioned in Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which reads as follows: “Every person has the right to inviolability in private life, in personal and family secrets, and in defense of dignity and honor.” The Article adds that “Government bodies, social organizations and responsible representatives from the mass media must give every citizen the opportunity to learn of papers, resolutions and sources of information touching his rights and interests.” According to Abdrakhmanov’s lawyer Alla Ryzhkova, “What was written about Abdrakhmanov and his organization in 1994 has negatively affected his political career since that time. He lost his position on the Supreme Council in March 1995, three months after the publication of the series of Karavan articles.”
Karavan, on the other hand, used the constitutionally guaranteed right of individual freedom of expression, which, he argued, includes published matter, as its chief defense for printing information on Abdrakhmanov’s dealings. Part of Article 20 of the Constitution reads, “Everyone has the right to freely receive and spread information through any means not forbidden by law.”
“If both sides use constitutional grounds as their main argument,” said lawyer and former Kazakhstani parliamentarian Sergei Vlasenko, “the court is going to have to judge how the articles are written. If Abdrakhmanov is judged to be attacked as a person, then his case will carry weight; if Karavan is viewed as addressing him in his public function, the outcome could go in the newspaper’s favor.”
After its onset in early February 1998 at Almaty City’s Jetysu Regional Court, the case was interrupted and continued on 16th February. Arguments have turned from constitutional and reputation appeals to queries regarding the legitimacy of documents supporting Karavan’s claims. The newspaper has submitted these to the court for review. Abdrakhmanov is asking for $10 million in moral damages, and, according to Ryzhkova, “The sum may go up, since Karavan is refusing to retract its alegations, and it continues printing information that does not correspond with reality.” Ryzhkova said that Karavan’s report that its account had been frozen in early February is untrue and that “Mr. Abdrakhmanov voluntarily abstained from such harsh action.” But according to Karavan’s Assistant Editor Viktor Shatskikh, Karavan’s main representative at court, a Karavan account was frozen and will be reopened “only after the outcome of the case is known.” A 20th February article in Karavan said that it would appeal the “court ordered arrest” of the account in early March.
“Karavan is a newspaper very hard to categorize,” commented Central Asian expert media observer and analytical journalist Andrey Sviridov. “No one who is ‘educated’ reads it, but everyone knows what was in the last issue, and they talk about it.” Evgeniy Kosenko and Viktor Verk, both former Karavan journalists for several years, characterized the publication as “very flexible.”
“Karavan is a law-abiding publication; it pays its taxes,” former Karavan journalist Kosenko commented. Then he added, “But Karavan likes to blow its own horn every now and then.” He categorized Karavan’s temporary decision to print in Bishkek instead of using government-run presses in Almaty as a “purely economic expediency,” a view contrasting with that of the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund, which awarded Karavan a printing press at least in part on political grounds in May 1995. He and Verk also mentioned a mysterious fire in 1995 that destroyed Karavan’s paper storage facilities. At the time, Karavan published articles claiming political interference. The newspaper was facing unfriendly responses from the government for its laissez faire attitude on land privatization, an issue to which many officials were in sharp opposition. “No one knows what really happened,” Verk said.
Perhaps out of sheer “sibling rivalry,” perhaps for lack of definitive information, other print and broadcast media have given Karavan’s claims factual but cautious attention. In contrast to a Karavan editorial of 6th February entitled “Who Is Trying to Close Karavan?”, in which Karavan called this case an “attack on all independent mass media,” the English-Russian-language newspaper “Greenwitch Time” on the same day stuck to a tight version of facts in the case, including the suicide of the now defunct TekhnopolisBank banker, who reportedly was involved in the loan to Abdrakhmanov’s organization and was to be one of Karavan’s main witnesses. Almaty’s Channel 31, a main rival of the KTK TV station held by the Karavan media conglomerate, pointed out Karavan’s refusal to disclose its sources of information. Reports from all mass media, however, agree that this case, replete in issues of power, money, and life, will be long and complex in its resolution.
Elizabeth Schuster
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Postscript:
1. On Monday, 23rd February, KTK (as far as I know) and all other TV reporters were banned by the trial judge from using cameras. Abdrakhmanov’s wife and daughter were appearing as witnesses, and the judge held that KTK TV reporting would exhort undue psychological pressure on them. Channel 31 aired a report showing the judge twice ordering KTK to leave; however, Channel 31 was not mentioned, and it was not clear whether other TV stations may or may not cover the case in court.
2. The next day, Abdrakhmanov gave a press conference
at the Kazakhstan Press Club. Reporters from various newspapers and
TV stations were there, but Karavan and KTK were the most vocal in their
questioning. The newspaper “Kazakhstanskaya Pravda” was the most
vocal in its support of Abdrakhmanov. Abdrakhmanov began by reading
a prepared statement, denying all or virtually all allegations made by
Karavan. Then he referred various financial questions to other parties
involved in the case, or to a coming press conference he will hold.
Considering that the case has seemed to turn from constitutional issues
to factual ones, I asked Abdrakhmanov how he looks at the case, as one
of freedom of press, or as one of answering the actual charges. “It’s
about freedom of press,” he replied, “Karavan’s freedom should also include
my freedom. By law, they should have allowed me the freedom to reply.
They trampled all my dignity. What kind of freedom is that?”
A Karavan reporter hastily interjected that back in 1993 (that is, before
the publication of the objectionable articles in 1994), a letter from Abdrakhmanov
had been published in Karavan. But Abdrakhmanov replied that since
then, despite numerous writings he had sent, not one had been published.