The FBRK editorial board has become the defendant in a civil claim brought by the management of the A.I. Barayev Research and Production Centre for Grain Farming (NPTSZK). Director Bauyrzhan Kalibayev and his deputy for science Yuriy Dolinny are demanding that the court declare our publications about financial violations at the Centre untrue, and recover from the editorial board 2 million tenge in compensation for moral harm.
HOW THE CONFLICT DEVELOPED
On 20 May 2026, FBRK published an article about the situation at the A.I. Barayev NPTSZK, based on a complaint submitted to state bodies by the Centre's chief accountant, Gulnar Kabdina. On 10 June, the editorial board received a pre-trial claim from Kalibayev and Dolinny demanding removal of the publications and publication of a retraction.
FBRK refused the claim, explaining that the article was based on reproducing Kabdina's complaint to state bodies.
A month later, the claimants filed a lawsuit with the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of the City of Astana - against Kabdina and FBRK founder Kirill Pavlov. In addition to having the information declared untrue and requiring a retraction, the claimants now demand compensation for moral harm in the amount of 2 million tenge and all court costs.
WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSING US OF
The authors of the claim assert that the publications contain "information that does not correspond to reality, which defames honour, dignity and business reputation". The specific complaints include mentions of violations of financial discipline, staffing pressure, fictitious electronic invoices and inflated cost of hay. According to the claimants, none of these assertions is supported by "admissible evidence".
That is a strong argument. Of course, if one does not read the article itself. After all, it is clear from the very beginning of the text that FBRK did not put forward accusations in its own name. Our editorial board used Kabdina's complaint - a document sent to state bodies. This is precisely the essence of journalism: to publicise information that was addressed to those who are obliged to respond to it.
THE STATE IS ALREADY RESPONDING
It is noteworthy that the claim itself, while denying the existence of any violations, inadvertently confirms the veracity of one key fact from our second publication on the same topic: the audit of the Centre's financial and economic activities by the Ministry of Agriculture (MSKh) in December 2025 did indeed take place.
It is precisely this audit that the authors of the claim cite as evidence of the absence of violations, apparently overlooking that the MSKh has never disclosed a single one of its results, except that "appropriate measures were taken in accordance with the established procedure" - a wording that refutes nothing and commits to nothing.
WHAT NEXT
Kazakh legislation protects reputation from the dissemination of untrue information. But reputation is not a synonym for comfort. The right to protect business reputation does not mean the right to demand the removal of any publication that raises inconvenient questions. Otherwise, this instrument turns into a universal mechanism for stifling journalism.
And, as is easy to guess, the Barayev Centre's lawsuit is far from the only attempt by structures connected with the National Agrarian Research and Education Centre (NANOTS) to challenge our right to report on what is happening in the organisations under its jurisdiction. While we were dealing with this lawsuit, another claim arrived at the editorial board - from the Barys farming enterprise, over our publications about Kazak Tulpary LLP. What that is about - we explain in detail at this link.