In 2026 in Kazakhstan, about 400 thousand violations of legislation were identified, and 627 civil servants were brought to disciplinary responsibility. At the same time, in the Zhetisu region alone, 2179 violations were identified over six months.
HOW THE VIOLATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED
According to Hronika.kz, in the Zhetisu region, between January and June 2026, 2179 instances of violation of the norms of the Administrative Code were recorded. As a result of these violations, 141 civil servants were punished.
At the same time, the number of citizens' appeals to local executive bodies of the region increased by 22% compared with the same period in 2025. In total, over six months, 25,790 appeals were received.
WHICH ISSUES RESIDENTS RAISED MOST OFTEN
The largest share of appeals fell into three areas:
- education — 19.6%
- land issues — 17%
- housing and communal services (HCS) — 9.4%
No appeals included in the Regional Risk Map were identified during this period.
HOW MANY CIVIL SERVANTS WERE PUNISHED ACROSS THE COUNTRY
According to information from the Agency for Civil Service Affairs, since the beginning of 2026, the agency conducted more than 2 thousand control measures to assess the quality of public service delivery.
The country currently provides 1476 types of public services — among them the issuance and registration of documents, the assignment of social payments and benefits, the provision of certificates, and licensing.
Based on the results of the control measures, about 400 thousand violations of legislation were identified in the country, and the rights of more than 10 thousand citizens were restored.
In 2026, 1010 recommendations were made to state bodies, and 627 servants were brought to disciplinary responsibility. In connection with violations of the deadlines and procedure for providing public services, 433 administrative protocols were drawn up.
By court decisions, 24.5 million tenge in fines was recovered to the budget.
CONTEXT
Problems with communication by state bodies have also been recorded before — including in situations related to the consideration of media requests and the provision of official information.
Thus, instead of an official response following the competition for the state information order, the FBRK editorial office received back its own application. The documents were returned by post after the winner of the competition in Pavlodar region had already been determined.
After the editorial office's appeal, the office of the akim of Pavlodar region conducted a review and confirmed a violation of the procedure for handling documents. The head of the department of information policy and media monitoring was given a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand.
A separate episode concerns Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport.
In August 2026, the FBRK editorial office sent a request to the airport regarding the circumstances of a court dispute with the Committee for Internal State Audit (CISA) of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan over 395.4 million tenge. The airport refused to respond, citing the absence of a document confirming the editor-in-chief's authority specifically on the date of the request. After FBRK's appeal, the Ministry of Culture and Information (MCI) stated that the grounds for refusal provided for by Article 36 of the Law "On Mass Media" are exhaustive, and that the requirement to confirm the editor-in-chief's authority on a specific date is not included in that list.
In parallel, the editorial office appealed to the Prosecutor General's Office. The appeal passed through several agencies and ultimately returned to the airport. The Aviation Regional Transport Prosecutor's Office of Astana provided the company with a document confirming the authority of the FBRK editor-in-chief. After that, the airport nevertheless responded to the original request.
The company that refused to respond to the media request did not consider it necessary to reconsider its position even after the relevant agency pointed out its error. As a result, the editorial office had to go through several state bodies and obtain separate confirmation of its authority before the airport finally responded to the request on the merits. And yet this chain could have been avoided if the company had simply looked carefully at the very Article 36 of the Law "On Mass Media" to which it itself referred.
