Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport has refused to respond to a request from the FBRK after the editorial team discovered inconsistencies in its 2024 financial statements. The relevant committee did respond to the same request, and now the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan has also made its position clear. It turns out that the very "framework of current legislation" within which the airport suggests the request should be considered does not, in fact, give it grounds for silence.
WHAT HAPPENED
Earlier, the FBRK analysed the 2024 financial statements of Astana Airport and found that the auditor had refused to vouch for 80% of its assets. During the review, our editorial team also raised questions relating to court proceedings and a debt to the state amounting to 395.4 million tenge. The FBRK sent official requests to the airport itself and to the Committee of Internal State Audit, expecting to receive explanations on each of the disputed matters.
However, Astana Airport refused to respond to the FBRK's request. Instead of a comment, the editorial team received a formal refusal: allegedly, the request signed by the FBRK's editor-in-chief was not accompanied by a document confirming the signatory's authority as of the current date.
The Committee of Internal State Audit took a different stance, and its response proved far more substantive. It shows that the inspectors' attention was drawn to inflated equipment prices, questionable payments, and unplanned expenses. This cluster of violations suggests why the airport might not have wanted to disclose unpleasant information.
WHAT THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND INFORMATION SAID
After the airport's refusal, the FBRK sent requests to several relevant agencies asking them to assess the lawfulness of such a refusal. The first to respond was the Ministry of Culture and Information (MCI). The ministry cited the Law "On Mass Media" and the Law "On Access to Information". According to Article 36 of the Law "On Mass Media", a response to a media request must be provided within five working days, and the request itself must be signed by the editor-in-chief, an authorised person, or an accredited journalist.
At the same time, the ministry emphasised that the law does not oblige the media to separately confirm, with each request, that the editor-in-chief's authority remains valid on the date of sending. The list of grounds for refusal in Article 36 is exhaustive - a request falling outside the agency's remit, non-compliance with legal requirements, or restricted access to information - and confirming the editor's status is not included in this list.
The MCI is not authorised to assess the actions of specific officials, but the ministry did send a letter of a recommendatory nature to Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport JSC regarding the need to comply with the law when handling media requests.
WHAT NEXT
The situation, to say the least, looks absurd. The airport chose not to answer the FBRK's questions - perhaps because explaining all the circumstances would hardly have been complimentary to it. But it seems the airport overlooked one thing: besides itself, there are other state agencies that are legally obliged to respond to media requests.
The FBRK editorial team will continue to monitor how the situation develops.
