Judge of the Almaly District Court of Almaty Zhanat Abenova explained why a witness was not allowed to be present in the courtroom during the criminal case of Sanjar Bokayev. The restriction is related to the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, which provide for the removal of witnesses from the courtroom before their questioning begins.
WHY THE WITNESS WAS NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COURTROOM
According to Centralmedia24, the judge referred to Article 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which regulates the procedure for questioning witnesses in a court hearing.
Under this provision, witnesses are removed from the courtroom before questioning begins. The presiding judge is also obliged to eliminate the possibility of communication between witnesses who have not yet been questioned and those who have already given testimony, as well as other participants present in the courtroom.
HOW THE COURT EXPLAINED THE RESTRICTION
In the court's explanation, it is stated that the requirement is aimed at ensuring the objectivity of witness testimony and eliminating the influence of information obtained during the proceedings on a witness's testimony.
Despite his procedural status, the citizen attempted to enter the public gallery to observe the proceedings. However, according to the judge's explanation, before being questioned he cannot be present at the hearing as an observer.
In connection with the situation, police officers were called on 102.
IS THE DECISION RELATED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF OPENNESS
The court emphasised that the restriction of access is due exclusively to the requirements of criminal procedural legislation and is not related to any restriction of the principle of openness of judicial proceedings.
CONTEXT
On 16 October 2026 in Almaty, the consideration began of the criminal case against public figure Sanjar Bokayev, his nephew Madiyar Kalmenov and videographer Ulan Nusipkozha. They are charged with fraud, legalisation of criminal proceeds, theft, illegal felling of trees and dissemination of knowingly false information.
At the first hearing, the defence stated that there had been violations during familiarisation with the case materials and asked for it to be returned to the prosecutor. One of the lawyers also announced an intention to file a written challenge against the judge.
