The specialised administrative offences court of Temirtau has transferred the administrative case of former Kazakhmys Corporation employee Bakhyt Adilova to the court in her registered place of residence — Astana.
According to media reports, the hearing of Adilova's complaint against the protocol drawn up by the Temirtau police was scheduled for 12 May. After this, the court was to proceed with the hearing of the administrative case initiated following a complaint from the Kazakhmys Corporation itself to the internal affairs authorities. However, the court announced that the case was being transferred 'due to lack of jurisdiction'.
It has become known that the police drew up the protocol on an administrative offence against Adilova under Article 456-2, Part 3 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ('Placement and dissemination of false information').
According to the protocol, on 10 March Adilova posted information on a YouTube channel 'which creates conditions for a breach of public order and the rights of the Kazakhmys Corporation Limited Liability Partnership'. The police indicated that Adilova allegedly admitted the offence and refused to receive a copy of the protocol.
However, Adilova herself categorically denies these claims. In her complaint to the court, she stated that she was not made aware of the content of the protocol before signing it, did not receive any explanation of her rights, and did not understand what exactly she was signing.
The corporation confirmed that it had filed a complaint with the police against its former employee, but did not specify which information it considered to be false.
According to Adilova, the filing of the complaint with the police is likely linked to a public speech by Mazhilis deputy Azat Peruashev, in which he criticised the activities of major subsoil users and mentioned the former Kazakhmys employee, citing her comments about the 'export of ore and copper concentrate'.
In the same deputy's inquiry, Azat Peruashev demanded that the information about the lack of analysis of ores and concentrates exported from the country be confirmed or refuted, and, if it proved to be false, that legal action be taken against those disseminating such information 'which damages the reputation of companies and the industry'.