Dozens of requests sent by Kun.uz to the prosecutor’s office, in particular to the PGO press secretary, remain unanswered. The head of the information service of the Tashkent city prosecutor’s office seems to have forgotten his obligation to work with the mass media.
It is a fact that in recent years, state organizations have taken a step towards openness in information policy and started communicating with the public. Accordingly, the information services in them have been given many conditions, and their status gas been equaled to the deputy head.
In today’s information age, the public has questions about the authorities every day. Information services, whose job is to answer questions from the media and the public, usually have two choices.
First, a reasonable explanation, solution or explanation is given regarding the raised issue. And the second is simply to “ignore”, pretending to be unaware of anything. Such a situation will gradually lead to a crisis in public relations. In the absence of official and accurate information, various doubts arise. The story, which is to be kept secret without giving any relation, increases the interest in it even more.
One of the information services of such a state organization belongs to the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Khayot Shamsutdinov, the PGO press secretary, has recently been selectively answering Kun.uz inquiries about various crimes. In particular, the fate of many criminal cases opened against representatives of the authorities, law enforcement agencies or judicial officers remains unknown. Inquiries in this regard are left unanswered.
Let’s move on to examples in recent months. The following questions asked to Khayot Shamsutdinov remain unanswered:
• In October 2022, about the arrest of 3 former judges in Tashkent as part of a criminal case;
• In August 2022, the result of the criminal case opened in the Chilanzar district of Tashkent city in connection with damage to perennial trees due to road expansion works (the initial investigation period as required by law is 3 months and this period has actually passed);
• In December 2021, reports about arrest of former Almazar district prosecutor, former head of the Prosecutor General’s Office, former special prosecutor A.T. on suspicion of accepting large sums of bribes;
• In August 2022, about the fact that a part of the rolled metal allocated at preferential prices for the construction of Tashkent City facilities was illegally sold to third parties for cash;
• The end of the criminal case related to the fact that the lower parts of the trees on the 1.5 hectares of land near the house on Amir Temur 1 St., Yunusabad district were cut down by unknown persons and a total of 10 eldar pine trees were damaged;
• In April 2021, about destruction of hundreds of advertising banners in the city of Tashkent without any legal justification.
At the end of 2021, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev spoke about the increase in crime cases in Tashkent and the appearance of “tax collectors” among criminals, and also criticized the capital’s chief prosecutor. The identity of the criminals mentioned by the President and the measures taken against them were not disclosed.
Such examples can be continued. In response to our objection that it has become more difficult to get information from the Prosecutor General’s Office, Khayot Shamsutdinov explained this situation by the fact that “his work has increased”.
It should be noted here that Shamsutdinov, who started working in this position in 2019, was much more open to the media than he is now. In many cases, they have been providing prompt information in response to our requests. This is probably due to the fact that the leaders of AIMC at that time were able to set strict requirements for the information services of state bodies.
There are other representatives of the information service in favor of the policy of secrecy in the prosecutor’s office, who cannot be singled out. Khurshida Rakhmonova, head of the press service of the Tashkent city prosecutor’s office, does not hide that she is indifferent to the journalist’s questions. She usually ignores requests sent to her or simply “forgets” them, saying that she will respond later.
According to the President’s decision of June 27, 2019 “On additional measures to ensure the independence of mass media and develop the activities of information services of state bodies and organizations”, providing full and prompt information to the mass media about the activities of state bodies and organizations is defined as the main task of the information services and public relations services of state bodies.
According to Article 35-1 of the law “On mass media”, media representatives have the right to apply orally or in writing with a request for information on the activities of state authorities and management bodies.
The request of media representatives should be considered and answered or rejected within a maximum period of 7 days, with a reasoned response.
The Agency for Information and Mass Communications should pay attention to the fact that it has become difficult to get information from the Prosecutor General’s Office.
In addition, it should be recalled that the Anti-Corruption Agency also has obligations in this regard. According to the presidential decree, the Agency must continuously monitor the area of transparency; should help to establish effective public control over the activities of state bodies and organizations through mass media.
The anti-corruption body was purposefully assigned these duties. Because usually the state bodies are not interested in informing the people about the crimes in their structures. Most of the information that the PGO does not disclose is related to the shortcomings of the legal system.
A joint reaction of AIMC and the Anti-Corruption Agency is required for such situations. The absence of a reaction creates the ground for further escalation of such cases, which are already increasing, and for widespread indifference to media inquiries.
We hope that the team of law defenders headed by the Prosecutor General, who supervises the clear and uniform implementation of laws in the country, will be an example for others in the information policy.
