In the story surrounding the "National Agrarian Scientific and Educational Centre" NJSC (NASEC) and its subordinate organisations, there is an episode that deserves separate attention. As far back as 31 March 2026, the Specialised Inter-District Court for Administrative Offences of the city of Astana fined NASEC 86,500 tenge for the untimely and incomplete provision of documents at the request of a legal consultant representing the interests of the former head of the A.I. Barayev Research and Production Centre for Grain Farming (RPCCF), Timur Savin.
The request concerned documents related to a staffing decision at the Barayev Centre. And although the proceedings themselves concerned compliance with the established response deadline, their circumstances add to the history of conflicts surrounding the management of NASEC's subordinate organisation.
WHAT THE COURT ESTABLISHED
On 9 December 2025, legal consultant Klimkin sent a written request to NASEC in the interests of Timur Savin, related to the activities of the Barayev Centre.
The consultant required the documents preceding the decision to relieve Savin of his position. According to his explanations, the extract from the management board decision that was provided did not replace the extract from the Board of Directors, which considered the relevant matter. Also, according to him, he was not sent an explanatory note for the Board of Directors.
As noted in the ruling, the response deadline expired on 24 December 2025. However, NASEC provided a response only on 13 February 2026, and not in full. As far back as 5 January 2026, the consultant applied to the Astana city department of justice with a request to take appropriate measures.
Having examined the case materials, the court concluded that the violation was proven. The supporting evidence included the protocol on the administrative offence, the request itself, NASEC's response and the application to the department of justice.
As a result, NASEC was held administratively liable under Article 668 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Obstruction of the lawful activity of an advocate or legal consultant"). The penalty imposed was 20 MCI — 86,500 tenge.
WHY NASEC INSISTED ON A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
NASEC's representative in court did not admit the organisation's guilt and put forward several arguments.
Firstly, she stated that the response to the request was sent on 13 February 2026, and that until 31 December 2025 Savin had access to all of the organisation's documents.
Secondly, the representative alleged a possible conflict of interest: the consultant Klimkin simultaneously worked as a lawyer at the Barayev Centre and represented Savin's interests related to the activities of that same organisation and its management bodies.
In support of its position, NASEC referred to paragraph 7 of Article 76 of the Law "On Advocacy and Legal Assistance", which prohibits a legal consultant from providing assistance where a conflict of interest exists. It also cited a provision of the employment contract restricting representation of the interests of third parties in relations with the employer and its subdivisions.
Klimkin himself maintained that current legislation does not prohibit combining the work of a staff lawyer with the status of legal consultant. He also stated that he provided assistance to Savin free of charge, and that the requested documents were not provided in full.
The court did not accept NASEC's arguments regarding the conflict of interest. The ruling states that, at the time of the request, Savin held the position of chairman of the management board of the subordinate organisation and therefore, in relation to NASEC, was not a third party within the meaning of the circumstances considered by the court. The court also noted that the restrictions established by law did not prevent Klimkin's activity as a legal consultant in the situation described.
Thus, the reference to an alleged conflict of interest did not relieve NASEC of liability for violating the established procedure for providing documents.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
The decision is based on Article 76-1 of the Law "On Advocacy and Legal Assistance". State bodies, local self-government bodies and legal entities are obliged, within ten working days, to give a written response to a legal consultant's request related to the provision of legal assistance.
Refusal to provide the requested information is permissible if the information constitutes information with restricted access.
The court qualified the response, received in breach of the established deadline and not in full, as a failure to provide the necessary documents. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the obligation to respond to a request and the obligation to provide absolutely all requested materials: the legislation provides an exception for information with restricted access. In the ruling under consideration, the basis for liability was non-compliance with the established procedure for providing a response.
HOW THIS CONNECTS TO THE HISTORY OF THE BARAYEV CENTRE
The story of the document request is another episode in the protracted conflict surrounding the Barayev Centre. Previously, FBRK wrote about the situation that developed after the change of leadership at the enterprise: chief accountant Gulnar Kabdina applied to state bodies, pointing to alleged violations of financial discipline and problems with staffing decisions.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) became involved in the situation, and together with NASEC it created a working group to review the applications received. The ministry reported that a final conclusion was being prepared, but its content was not disclosed.
At the same time, questions about management arise not only at the Barayev Centre. NASEC's structure includes numerous subsidiary organisations, including agricultural experimental stations (AES) — Arkalyk, Karabalyk, North Kazakhstan, Karaganda and others, as well as the "Zarechnoye" experimental station. Previously, FBRK had already drawn attention to the use of scientific institutions' land and the leasing of agricultural land under the guise of "joint activity".
In October 2026, a new episode also emerged: equipment supplier Just the right (JTR) applied to the Anti-Corruption Service of the National Security Committee (ACS of the NSC) with a request to investigate the circumstances of NASEC's refusal to accept three combine harvesters worth 897.8 million tenge. The application concerns, among other things, demands to replace the equipment and the commissioning of an additional examination.
Against this background, the March ruling adds a separate fact established by the court to the story: NASEC was held administratively liable for the untimely and incomplete provision of documents related to matters of management of the Centre.
This decision does not confirm other claims against the enterprise's leadership and does not assess the soundness of staffing decisions. But it once again draws attention to the question of how openly decisions are taken within the NASEC system and how effectively the mechanisms for access to the documents necessary to scrutinise them function.
If the information concerns decisions of the management bodies of a scientific institution, how full-fledged can public and legal oversight be when, in order to obtain documents, one has to apply to the justice authorities and secure the organisation's administrative liability?
WHAT THE RULING CHANGES — AND WHAT IT DOES NOT PROVE
For NASEC, the immediate consequence was the imposition of a fine of 86,500 tenge. According to the ruling, it is subject to voluntary payment no later than thirty days from the date the decision enters into legal force.
But the matter is not only the amount of the penalty. The legal consultant requested documents related to a staffing decision at the Barayev Centre, but received a response late and not in full. As a result, the question of providing the documents reached the court. The ruling itself does not call into question the lawfulness of the staffing decision, but it shows that even obtaining the documents necessary to scrutinise it can become the subject of separate court proceedings.
