After the publication of the first article about the conflict surrounding the saiga breeding nursery in the Korgalzhyn district, the editorial team at FBRK delved into the archive of court decisions and administrative proceedings involving the hunter Batyr Seikenov. This concerns three different cases from recent years in which his public statements on social media became the subject of judicial scrutiny, with varying outcomes.
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE RESPONSE ON THE NURSERY
In parallel, following the publication of the first article, the editorial team sent an official request to the Prosecutor's Office of Akmola Region regarding the legality of implementing the project itself in the Korgalzhyn district. The response dated 27 July 2026 states that the permit issued on 12 May 2026 was granted in accordance with the established procedure: all legally required documents were attached to the application and were reviewed by the authorised body.
The prosecutor's office separately noted that the biological justification for the removal of saigas was developed by the Livestock and Veterinary Science and Production Centre LLP, accredited by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a scientific entity, and that the actual removal of 250 saigas between 13–17 May is confirmed by certificates signed by representatives of the Akmola Regional Territorial Inspectorate, Okhotzooprom and other authorised bodies.
TIMELINE
- 22 and 28 August 2023 Seikenov published a series of posts about the Institute of Zoology RSE, after which the institute filed a civil lawsuit for the protection of business reputation.
- 5 September 2025 Seikenov published a video accusing the former head of the police in Arkalyk, O.T. Baimurzin, of corruption.
- 10-17 August 2025 Seikenov published a series of posts containing accusations against the Arkalyk Akimat and Lider Stroy 2002 LLP, which later became the subject of a separate administrative proceeding.
Below we provide data from the relevant court documents for each of the three cases.
CASE NO.1: INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY (2023–2024)
The court proceedings were triggered by Seikenov's posts regarding a permit issued to the Institute of Zoology for the capture of 200 saigas for scientific purposes. He called the institute a "pseudo-scientific body" and a "leech attached to the state's body", and also claimed that the institute had requested 750 million tenge from the Ministry of Ecology to develop a biological justification for regulating the saiga population, whereas he himself, together with scientists from the Zhangir Khan West Kazakhstan Agrarian-Technical University, had developed such a document for free.
The Inter-district Civil Court of Astana partially upheld the institute's claim. A judicial linguistic expert examination established that most of Seikenov's statements were value judgments and opinions not subject to verification for truthfulness; therefore, they were not deemed defamatory.
However, the court found the specific assertion about the requested 750 million tenge to be untrue: according to a letter from the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife dated 6 December 2023, the institute had not requested this exact sum from the relevant department for developing the biological justification. The figure mentioned by Seikenov related to a different document, a technical specification for research work for 2023–2025. The court did not refute the fact that the biological justification was indeed developed free of charge by Seikenov together with scientists from the Zhangir Khan WKATU and submitted to the Ministry of Ecology; this part of his publications was not found to be unreliable.
The court ordered Seikenov to publish a retraction of the specific phrase about 750 million tenge on the same social media platforms within 10 working days. He was also ordered to pay the institute representative costs of 251,175 tenge, while the institute, in turn, was ordered to pay Seikenov 200,000 tenge.
The case file also recorded the practical consequences of the publications. According to witness testimony (the head of a laboratory), based on the same permit of 21 August 2023, the institute planned to capture saigas to replenish the zoological collection and to transfer the carcasses to Aqmol Trade LLP under a cooperation agreement concluded for the research and processing of meat products.
The capture did not take place: according to the witness, this was prevented by the public outcry caused by Seikenov's publications. On 7 September 2023, the institute was forced to terminate the agreement with Aqmol Trade LLP, incurring losses in the amount of the paid state duty. At the time of the publications, Seikenov's Facebook page had over 4,730 followers, predominantly hunters.
According to the institute's representative – a lawyer contacted by an FBRK journalist – Seikenov filed an appeal against the decision, but the appellate instance left it unchanged, and the decision entered into legal force. According to the lawyer, Seikenov voluntarily published the retraction and reimbursed the awarded court costs; enforcement was not required. It is reported that there were no further court proceedings between the parties regarding this matter.
The FBRK editorial team attempted to find the publication with the retraction on Seikenov's page independently but could not locate it at the time of preparing this article. Meanwhile, the original publications from 2023, including the assertion about the 750 million tenge supposedly requested by the institute, which the court found to be untrue, remain unchanged on Seikenov's page, without any note regarding the court decision.
SEIKENOV AND THE HUNTING BUSINESS
The conflict surrounding the scientific capture of saigas is not the only issue where Seikenov's stance has changed over time. We have previously written that before Seikenov began sharply criticising the state policy on regulating saiga numbers and accusing the 'Institute of Zoology' of a 'pseudo-scientific' approach, he himself publicly advocated for the capture and export of live saigas to China, where the horns of artiodactyls are in high demand, a request which was subsequently denied by the state.
Seikenov also openly stated that hunting tourism could generate significant revenue and proposed specific measures for its development: legalising the concept of "weapon rental" (according to him, authorities refused to do this, citing terrorism risks) and transferring the right to determine hunting dates and seasons to the owners of hunting preserves themselves, rather than the state.
Seikenov himself is the president of the National Chamber of Hunters and Fishermen "Ayala" NGO and a co-owner of several companies related to hunting, including Hunting & Fishing Yrgyz LLP and Ayala Trans Group LLP.
A similar stance is evident in his own hunting practice. As far back as 2021, Seikenov publicly defended Kazakh citizens who killed a giraffe and a zebra on a hunt in Africa, calling the incident "an ordinary hunt" and comparing it to slaughtering livestock for meat. In July 2026, Seikenov himself is on a trophy hunt in Africa (South Africa) and consistently posts photos and videos of the trophies he has taken:
- 12 July - a golden wildebeest, taken together with his son;
- 15 July - a buffalo;
- 17 July - a crocodile;
- 21 July - a lion.
In the accompanying text, he defends trophy hunting as a display of skill, endurance, and respect for nature, responding to critics in the comments. In his post from 21 July, he references a childhood memory of a calf being slaughtered at a meat processing plant, stating that love for animals and understanding the "laws of life" are not mutually exclusive.
Thus, in different episodes, Seikenov has appeared both as a proponent of the commercial use of saigas, trophy hunting, and the development of hunting tourism as a business, and as a public defender of saigas against the scientific capture and industrial breeding organised by other market players.
CASE NO.2: FORMER POLICE CHIEF OF ARKALYK, BAIMURZIN (2025)
In a video dated 5 September 2025, Seikenov informed residents of Arkalyk that they had "chopped off one corrupt head", linking the departure of the city's former police chief, O.T. Baimurzin, "known as Oral" to his version of events, and claiming he had left his post "to retire" following the publicity. Baimurzin filed a complaint for slander.
In the court hearing, Seikenov did not admit guilt, stating that he was acting within the scope of his blogging and journalistic activities and that his statements were of an evaluative nature. According to him, the reason for the video was an appeal from a female follower who reported what she believed to be the unlawful termination of a criminal case in which she was the victim.
Baimurzin, in turn, told the court that he had not retired and continues to hold the position of head of the Arkalyk police department. At the request of Seikenov's defence, the court ordered a judicial philological expert examination to determine whether the video contained statements of fact or value judgments, whether the statements were directed at a specific individual, and whether there were signs of an intention to defame.
According to the expert's conclusion, the examined statements by Seikenov did not reveal any negative information defaming the honour, dignity, and business reputation of Baimurzin specifically. The court also noted that the body which drew up the protocol did not provide evidence that the disseminated information was knowingly false, and under the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the burden of proof in such cases lies with the prosecution. By a ruling of the Arkalyk City Court dated 23 December 2025, the proceedings in the case were dismissed due to the absence of a misdemeanour or administrative offence – meaning the decision in this case was made in Seikenov's favour.
CASE NO.3: ARKALYK AKIMAT AND LIDER STROY 2002 LLP (2025)
This case concerns two separate episodes combined into one court proceeding. The first is Seikenov's Facebook post from 10 August 2025, titled "The system is rotting. The names are known to all", containing ten points of accusation against the Arkalyk Akimat (misappropriation of funds from the sale of the Uchebnik LLP building, tender violations, inflated water supply prices, a disused building, expenses on a bus fleet, land distribution, and others), as well as a TikTok post claiming that humanitarian aid for those affected by the 2024 floods was concealed by the akimat.
The second episode is a YouTube video from 17 August 2025 alleging that Lider Stroy 2002 LLP was laying asphalt in Arkalyk without bitumen as part of a tender for the repair of several streets (the video was removed as of the time of publication).
The Specialised Inter-district Court for Administrative Offences in Astana examined each of the ten points of accusation against the akimat and found a lack of confirmation for most of them:
- The court found the statement about the misappropriation of 1.32 million tenge from the sale of the Uchebnik LLP building to be unreliable – this organisation itself is not registered and does not operate within Arkalyk; in court, Seikenov acknowledged that he made a translation error when preparing the post;
- The court dismissed allegations of tenders being awarded "to friends by arrangement" and inflated prices for water supply projects, establishing that state procurement in the city is conducted through competitive procedures in accordance with the law;
- The court found the claim about an empty and dilapidated building at the address Lesnaya 18/A to be untrue – no property with that address exists within Arkalyk;
- The court dismissed the allegation that the prosecutor's office "quietly buries" incoming complaints, establishing that the parties referred to were not related to the akimat;
- The court dismissed the claim about land being given away to "the right people" – according to established data, land plots in the city are sold through electronic auctions, information about which is published on the official akimat website;
- The court separately examined the point regarding the "bus fleet kept by private owners": it was established that all bus fleets within Arkalyk receive state subsidies on a general basis, including Ayala trans group LLP, operating under a contract, the founder of which, according to court data, is Seikenov himself.
The court separately examined the TikTok post claiming that humanitarian aid for victims of the 2024 floods was concealed by the akimat and only distributed after public outcry. According to data from the Department of State Internal Audit for Kostanay Region dated 10 November 2025, which the court referred to, no appeals from Arkalyk residents regarding the embezzlement of budget funds or humanitarian aid had been received by the department.
Regarding the episode involving Lider Stroy 2002 LLP, the court established that bitumen was used in the repair of Abay, Auelbekov, Kayyrbekov, Kozybaev, Baitursynov, and Demchenko streets, as confirmed by a certificate of conformity from the Product Conformity Confirmation Centre LLP dated 4 August 2025. The court found that Seikenov had not contacted the company to clarify the asphalt laying technology before publishing the video containing phrases such as "the akim is a bandit" and "how are we going to skim off the asphalt".
The court found Seikenov guilty on both charges for spreading knowingly false information on online platforms and imposed a fine of 20 MCI (Monthly Calculation Index) for each charge – 78,640 tenge each, totalling 157,280 tenge. Seikenov's defence requested the termination of proceedings due to the absence of a misdemeanour or offence, but the court refused. The editorial team has no information regarding the results of any appeal.
EPISODE WITH TOKHTAR AUBAKIROV (2021)
Not all of Seikenov's public conflicts reached the court. In March 2021, he published a post on Facebook, the headline of which was phrased as a question: "Tokhtar Aubakirov: cosmonaut or poacher?". In the text, Seikenov described a phone call from an official in the Kostanay Region stating that the first Kazakh cosmonaut, Tokhtar Aubakirov, intended to hunt wolves on his hunting grounds, and claimed that Aubakirov and his companions subsequently ended up in the territory of the Altyn Dala nature reserve, where hunting is prohibited.
The Ministry of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources, commenting on the situation to the media, reported that in 2021 Aubakirov had applied three times for permission to take a wolf and three times received a reasoned refusal – meaning no hunting permit was issued to him that season. A mobile group formed after the publications recorded tracks of vehicles entering and leaving the reserve territory, but did not find the individuals themselves on site.
Aubakirov himself stated in conversation with journalists that he had come to the reserve area unarmed with the aim of seeing the places where he spent his youth, and had no intention of hunting. In response to journalists' questions, Seikenov admitted that he had not personally seen Aubakirov with a weapon: "I cannot assert that he had a weapon, because I did not see it myself". Nevertheless, the headline and tone of the publication were built on a direct juxtaposition of Aubakirov's status as a national hero with an accusation of poaching.
OKHOTZOOPROM'S POSITION ON THE POWERS OF INSPECTORS
Separately, Okhotzooprom disagreed with Seikenov's public statements. The reason for this was the hunter's claims that environmental inspectors supposedly had the right only to patrol the territory and could not check citizens, transport, documents, or weapons.
In its statement, Okhotzooprom pointed out that this does not comply with the law: employees of specialised environmental organisations are vested with specific supervisory and procedural powers – to check documents, record offences, conduct inspections, and, when legally justified, search vehicles, seize illegally obtained wildlife and tools for their taking, with subsequent transfer to authorised bodies.
Okhotzooprom also noted that Seikenov himself previously headed a specialised environmental organisation, during which period his inspection staff performed similar functions – checking citizens and vehicles and identifying violations.
The department regarded Seikenov's current statements as contradicting this practice and stated that this raises questions about the professional competence of their author.
CONCLUSION
Three court cases yielded three different legal outcomes, while two other episodes – the conflict with Tokhtar Aubakirov and Seikenov's own hunting practices – never reached court and remain outside formal assessment. But behind this diversity of outcomes, one and the same recurring disconnect is visible: between the certainty with which public accusations are formulated at the moment of publication and what remains of them after verification through documents, expert examination, or witness testimony.
There is also a more general contradiction that cannot be confined within the framework of a single court case. Seikenov's public reputation is built on the image of a consistent defender of wildlife – saigas, roe deer, wolves. Yet, over many years, he himself has openly engaged in trophy hunting for large wild animals, including a lion, a buffalo, and a crocodile – not for sustenance, but as a publicly displayed trophy, accompanied by his own reflections on respecting nature through the killing of an animal.
How can the image of a principled defender of nature be reconciled with the practice of a trophy hunter? It is a question to which Seikenov himself provides no answer in his publications. This does not mean that every new statement by Seikenov is knowingly false. But the history of his public conflicts consistently suggests one thing: before taking yet another loud statement at face value, it is worth checking it first – and only then believing it.
