The Final Statement
‘Could it be that everything I suffered for was worth it? And that I must drink my cup of poison, and that it will not have been in vain?’
Yes, I thought a lot about this [last] statement. Of course, I would have liked everything to be different–even starting with the way I look. But this is how things are. First of all, I want to say, Your Honour, that I am facing very serious charges here, including embezzlement and misappropriation. But no one has any doubt that I am here because I am a journalist and because I had my own view of the profession. And my view of the profession and of journalism, of how we should work, has brought me to the defendants’ bench.
It did not start today or yesterday. A year, two, three years ago–it was going on, rolling on, rolling on… I was defending the independence of my newsroom, and there were demands not to cover certain things… For example, a trial like the one I am facing, I said that we had to cover it. When, for example, some journalist was on trial and I was told, ‘You must not cover this, don’t write about it’, I would say, ‘How can we not? There is a trial going on, we have to cover it’. And so it went, with every issue: don’t write this, delete that… I lived in a state of constant personal warfare.
And eventually, in 2025, I was told to hand my company over to someone… I refused, and this conflict escalated. It was an escalation of the conflict during which I always said, defending myself by exactly the same means, ‘I am your Ukraine! I have been attacked, and you are Russia. I am defending myself’. And ultimately, my defence brought me here.
And the whole drama is that, right here, in this place, it would be easier for me if I could say, ‘You know, all of this was worth it, I… Freedom of speech is inviolable. The independence of a newsroom, democracy–all of this is simply so important that I am ready to lay down my life, my son’s future, for it’. But, you know, there are two archetypes of heroes in psychology: Hamlet and Don Quixote.
Don Quixote never doubts. He fights, he believes–he is aware–that he is right, and in that respect it is even easier for him to go to the scaffold, to face a firing squad, to go to prison. He is certain that his cause is just. Hamlet always doubts. He is constantly asking questions. He reflects: ‘Could it be this way?’ And, in fact, the tragic hero is Hamlet. Don Quixote is the happy type, because whatever happens to him, if you are absolutely certain that it was all worth it, it is easier for you. The Earth itself, the Universe itself, supports you. And Hamlet is like that… Lenin used to call people like that ‘the swamp’, simply ‘shit’, ‘the intelligentsia’. But the thing is, I am not Don Quixote, I am Hamlet.
Even before all this, there were things that others would regard as a terrible sin on my part… democracy, for example… Even though I always defended the independence of my newsroom and believed that we should all cover important events objectively, I nevertheless have a very complicated view even of democratic processes, which I believe can be dangerous for our society in some circumstances. And in the end, my constant doubts led me to being completely alone. I am neither with the authorities nor with any pro-government ‘sects’. The opposition hates me, and so do the pro-government people. I am completely alone, and you can see it even in court, can’t you? Because I am a person who doubts.
And throughout this entire trial I have been thinking: ‘Was it worth it?’ Is the independence of a newsroom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression worth everything I have been through? I have lost my health because of the trials and their consequences. I said that all of this had been going on for two years, even three. Well, I am Hamlet, I doubt. There are always two sides here, and the other side says, ‘But how can that be? What about giving the defence a voice, for example, when we cover the trial of some person?’ And I am being told not to give the defence a voice. I say, ‘How can that be? That simply cannot be done’. And we give the defence a voice, and afterwards they come to me and say, ‘Seventy percent of the shares, please, put them on the table’. What, was all of this worth it?
Especially when it comes to the person in question, who has not written a single word about me now–neither in defence nor in support of the prosecution. It would have been easier to say back then, ‘Fine. Don’t cover it? We won’t’. That is what everyone does. And with regard to my trial, too. And they live normal lives. Whereas I, as Lenin put it, am truly stuck in this swamp… And these sufferings I have gone through would simply have been easier to bear if I were Don Quixote, who firmly knows that this is necessary for people, that this is necessary for society. But I think, ‘Does Kazakhstan, does our society, really need this?’
You know, that is a big question. And perhaps it is not needed at all? People, by the way, if we are talking about it, I here… You know, I have always defended people from everyone and from… (here the judge interrupts Gulnar)
No, please. This is my last statement–it may be my last statement in life. I ask you–I will say everything I want to say. I am asking you very much. (here Gulnar is interrupted again)
No, I am speaking entirely to the point.
Because I… I always had doubts, even when it came to [inaudible surname], when I published unconfirmed official information, yes? There were other cases. And, you know, it was not only the prosecution, for example, that accused me of providing information that had not been confirmed. But, for example, I know for certain that I trust my sources–two or three sources, independent of one another, according to journalistic standards. I was spoiled by my years of study in the United States; I studied there for four years, four times in my life, according to these standards. But, you know, I noticed that in Kazakhstan people still prefer information that they believe must be confirmed by an official body.
And when you say, ‘You know, governments all over the world, including in the United States, do not want to publicise or advertise their mistakes, do they? They all try to conceal them’. So ‘confirmed information’–do not confuse it with ‘permitted information’. But here we generally treat a press release, confirmation from official bodies, as a sacred cow. In reality, it is more like permission: ‘I allow this information to be published, but I do not allow that information to be published’.
And because of that, it supposedly becomes unconfirmed. But it is confirmed by our sources. And, you know, with an energy worthy of a better cause, I spent years proving that I was right about this… You know, in Kazakhstan we confuse these things. [because people believe that] An official press release is the only confirmed information. But actually, yes, let’s say this is not relevant to the case, but it is relevant to my charges, to my fate now… The First Lady died, right? According to all our sources whom I trust, independent of one another, from the inner circle of the First President’s family and from the Government Hospital itself. We know that she died. Officially, this is not confirmed. And so our society… that is another reason why I am asking whether it was worth it.
Maybe it wasn’t. Perhaps my sacrifices were not worth it. Because when people in Kazakhstan hear an official press release from that same Government Hospital saying that she is alive, for them it is like a sacred cow. For them, the journalist simply becomes… and they demand that the journalist be arrested! Even opposition figures say, ‘This information has not been confirmed, so why isn’t Bazhkenova being arrested? Why isn’t Bazhkenova being detained?’
Ultimately, during these months of prolonged rethinking, I kept asking myself–was it worth it? All this proving of mine, this ‘confirmed information’. Maybe it really is easier to work with information that has appeared in an official press release? You publish it, and nobody will sue you. You are guaranteed not to lose in civil court–and we lost cases over obvious things, yes? And I always had these doubts.
On the other hand, we were doing something useful. And, you know, that is what the profession itself–journalism–is about. But I should have left it in time, the way athletes retire at the right time. And, you know, at one point I even… I doubt that I was right, you know why?
There was a figure in Russia, an Old Believer, Archpriest Avvakum. He spent 18 years in confinement underground, together with his wife and children. All his children died when they were exiled to Siberia. In the end, he was executed–terribly executed. It was the seventeenth century, when there was a church reform in Russia.
And in The Life of Archpriest Avvakum there is an almost historical account. When they were travelling to Siberia, and they had already lost all their children, his wife said to him, ‘Why all this? Why all these sacrifices? What are we even trying to achieve?’ And he answered her, ‘How can you say such a thing? The truth is on our side’. And what was he fighting against? He was fighting against Patriarch Nikon’s church reform, which involved certain details–the requirement to shave one’s beard, to make the sign of the cross with three fingers.
This goes to the heart of the matter. Archpriest Avvakum said to his wife, ‘But this is for a just cause!’ In the seventeenth century. But today, in the twenty-first century, we all understand that these were unnecessary sacrifices, needed by no one. All his children died, his wife died in terrible suffering, and he himself was executed. And for what? There are many people who suffered because they believed that their cause was just. But in the end, as time passed, we came to understand that Archpriest Avvakum, his sacrifice–it… Just like Lord Babington in England. He was a Catholic. And simply because he was a Catholic, he organised a conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth with the aim of killing her. She was a Protestant. The conspiracy was uncovered, and he was sentenced to death. In the film Elizabeth [there is a scene]: the head of Queen Elizabeth’s secret police enters his cell, and they have a dialogue. He [Babington] says to him, ‘Yes, you will execute me. But people will remember me. It will not all be in vain’. And Walsingham looks at him and, with a bitter smile, says, ‘You will be forgotten’. And he was forgotten.
And with this struggle of mine over the past three or four years, I have lost my company, I have lost my freedom. I think, maybe I am Archpriest Avvakum, who created some kind of ideal for himself and simply fought for it. But there is another important point here: we say that we are doing it for society. But perhaps society does not care at all; perhaps it does not actually need any of this.
But, as I said, Hamlet has two sides. He doubts. He does not simply say, ‘Oh yes, that’s how it is’. There were other sacrifices: Galileo, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno. Each of us is a great universe in our own right, and we are part of these universes, right? We want to believe that we are in the constellation of Galileo, Copernicus, that we are fighting for the truth. But what if we are not?
The only thing is that Galileo also had doubts. But when I think about everything I have been through over the past few years, I still cannot figure out for myself whether it was all worth it or not. And I think: am I part of that constellation? Such a tiny point in the universe of Galileo, Copernicus, Socrates? Or am I some kind of fanatic who has been fighting for something that is no longer even clear, merely inventing certain ideals for myself? Perhaps there was more of my ego in it? There. But that would not inspire me.
During the nine months of house arrest, I read a lot. I generally love philosophy, I love books on philosophy, I love biographies. And my persecution did not begin with this criminal case. First, I was discredited to the point of being completely dismissed. I was accused of plagiarism, of stealing other people’s texts. And I thought, ‘How could this be? How could this be?’ But the person of Socrates always supported me.
Before executing Socrates, the Athenians discredited him. And in fact, Aristophanes’ famous play The Clouds, for those who do not know, was written about Socrates–it was commissioned. It has already been historically established that it was commissioned by the oligarchy so that Aristophanes would ridicule Socrates and his ideas.
In this play, The Clouds, Socrates’ ideas are clouds that, excuse me, fart. Specifically, they fart in the play. And all of Athens laughed at Socrates. By the time of his trial, his authority had been completely destroyed. People laughed at him; they might even spit after him as he walked by. But he… Great people are great people, right? And then, at his trial, when he was sentenced to death. By the way, do you know who sentenced him to death? Not the oligarchy, not the authorities of Athens–the Athenians!
Three hundred and fifty citizens of Athens out of five hundred sentenced him to death. And he drank his cup to the bottom. The other side of me, my Hamlet side, says, ‘Here are great people, be inspired by them. Why Archpriest Avvakum?’ That is, this is not a fact. And could it be that everything I suffered for was worth it? And that I must drink my cup of poison, and that it will not have been in vain? But, in fact, I do not know.
And regarding the charges brought against me. I said that if I were Don Quixote, I would answer you that our cause is just. I have absolutely no doubts about anything. But by psychological type I am Hamlet, who reflects and asks questions. And I am not sure. I am not sure that my sacrifices were worth it. Perhaps I was driven by ego. Perhaps this pendulum of struggle swung so far that I was simply proving that I was right in the process of fighting. But as for the charges brought against me. As for the sacrifices–yes, I have doubts: was it worth it or not? Because I understand why I am here.
But regarding the charges themselves, I am not guilty. Under Article 180, ‘Embezzlement and Misappropriation’, if I had allowed myself to steal, to ‘fleece’ the company of money, I would not be sitting here. I probably would have committed harakiri out of such shame, out of disgust with the baseness of my actions. Because that is too low, too vulgar. And besides, you know, I am an enterprising person. I have always found–have always found–honest ways to earn money. Long before I opened the company, I received large–probably the largest in Kazakhstan–fees for my articles and publications. I wrote speeches, for example, for executives of Western companies, for which I was also paid large sums of money. I have always earned money; I was never financially destitute.
And I never even had the temptation, never even had the thought, of enriching myself or stealing, because I always had commissions: writing a book–in 2012 I received $30,000 for writing a book under someone else’s name. That was my first book. Then I had other commissions. I wrote books on which people put their own names, but I received fees for them. I have no problems with money that I would stoop to dirtying myself over 83 million tenge. That is not consistent with my moral principles; I would be ashamed of myself.
As for the article on ‘Illegal Entrepreneurship’… Here, I suppose, I can say without any doubts that an entrepreneurial spirit and initiative, Your Honourable Prosecutor, are very important for a country’s prosperity. The more proactive and enterprising citizens are, the better. Someone buys an apartment, someone creates a company… Let them. People are like an anthill. Do not extinguish this entrepreneurial spirit.
Especially considering that I was surprised to hear that you are also seeking to ban me from engaging in entrepreneurial activity. You cannot ban a citizen from doing that. On the contrary, you should impose an obligation on them: ‘And your punishment is compulsory entrepreneurial activity! So that you show initiative, earn money, pay taxes’. It even says in the Bible: be fruitful and multiply, and grow wealthy. It does not matter what colour the cat is, as long as it catches mice. I have always caught mice. And I did not need an individual entrepreneur registration for that.
For example, suppose everything ends well, and as I imagine it, I have two apartments. Do I have to run and register as an individual entrepreneur in order to sell them? I cannot even understand this. My point is that people are always told: a person has corrected their ways, realised their mistakes… but here I cannot even understand. Is this something I should do?
Because if I really have to–yes, but I cannot even understand whether I need to do it now. Because it is absurd. So I run and register as an individual entrepreneur, increasing the burden on the state. And then what? Suppose I sell these apartments? Maybe I will think about whether to buy others or not? Even if I do buy them, they will just be there, won’t they? Can I do that? Pay tax in some other way?
Fine, but this is a question I have. I am not disputing that the entrepreneurial spirit in citizens must not be extinguished. I am a journalist, but I am also a citizen. We have many people who receive benefits, and they are respected. I am raising a child on my own; my child’s father died. I pay for his education; he attends the best school, where he receives a good education. This is very important to me. I earn the money for all of this, and I think that, regardless of my journalistic activities, the state should encourage people like me: ‘Oh, this woman is a single mother, she does not ask for benefits, she does not ask for any special privileges. Not once in her life. She does not use any government assistance at all. She just keeps working and trying to earn money. Good for her. Let everyone do the same’.
As for Article 274. I had a thought that perhaps the headline here should have been different. Honestly, that thought crossed my mind. I even thought that [inaudible surname], you see, is also at a disadvantage here because he did not come to answer my questions.
But when I reread the article, I thought that if I were writing it now, I would write it differently. And this is what I will say about it: I would have written it differently, I would have edited the article about Argyngazy Syzdykov, even taking the conflict with the fishermen into account. Well, yes, I would not have compared him to the North Korean dictator. That is, well, sort of… I would have written it differently. But otherwise, there was no false information in what I wrote. And I am not guilty. Even under Article 274: the headlines, about [inaudible surname], when I was reading them, certain characterisations of Syzdykov came to my mind, but that is not a criminal offence. It is only in some kind of totalitarian [state] that one could be tried for something like that. This is a civil matter. Therefore, I am not guilty under Article 189, Article 214, or Article 274.
But if the court finds that I am guilty of that same [inaudible surname], that I am guilty in the case of Syzdykov. If it [the court] finds that I am nevertheless guilty, I ask that an amnesty be applied to me. Because these are already articles under which there have been two amnesties. And I want to make a separate appeal to society, to the people as a whole. When a person is put on trial, it is as if their own people, the state, are standing against them. I want to address the people of Kazakhstan.
If something happens to me, yes, perhaps even when we are all gone, a year, ten years may pass, perhaps more, there will be transcripts, there will be audio recordings… I very much ask that, someday, when it is possible, an audit be conducted of the founding agreement of LLP Orda Media in the government database, in ‘Electronic Government for Citizens’, dated September 3, 2020.
Please conduct an examination. This founding agreement was altered. If something happens to me, I very much ask that this founding agreement be examined.
If something happens to me, when I am gone, perhaps my death will provide such an indulgence for such an honest examination of the founding agreement, as well as of four documents bearing forged signatures. This is my word, and you, yes, do not accept it. But if something happens to me, I very much ask: conduct an examination to establish that the signatures on those four documents were forged. There. I very much wanted to ask for this because I was unable to obtain justice.
Regarding the charge presented to me, I say that I am not guilty, I am innocent. I committed no crimes, I did not steal. The only thing is that under Article 189, I did commit financial violations. I acknowledge this; I said immediately during the investigation, ‘I did it, I optimised taxes’.
But at the same time, I want to emphasise that Orda Media LLP, under my management, paid between one hundred and one hundred and thirty million tenge in taxes per year. That is not a small amount for a media outlet that does not sell mineral resources or export valuables abroad. It creates value out of thin air.
As I always told journalists, motivating them: ‘We come in here in the morning, and there is nothing here. By evening, there are oil deposits here–our minds. With our minds, we generate our product’. That is really cool. There are very few businesses that generate something through their minds, through their intellect. There is nothing here, right? And then–bam!–you have created material value.
And we paid one hundred, one hundred and thirty–our largest annual tax payment was 130 million tenge. And that was despite the fact that I optimised taxes: for every employee, you pay forty percent in taxes on their salary. And I optimised that. The fact that I paid part of it in cash–well, that is a violation, but I did not steal anything, and accusing a person of something they did not do, while knowingly knowing this–that is a terrible sin. There is a court. The Supreme Court. I know that the Supreme Court is on my side. And I am calm about that.
And, as I repeat: if the court finds me guilty, I ask for an amnesty. I ask this even for the sake of my son, who… when there was a blackout here, and the prosecutor was speaking without electricity–
Yes, I am already finishing my final statement. I have already said, yes… What I want to add. I also ask the court not to deprive me of everything the prosecutor has requested. That is a ban on life, in fact.
The first entry in my employment record is from 1994–journalist at the newspaper Karavan, which at the time was the most popular newspaper in Kazakhstan and extremely difficult to get into. And since then I have never changed my profession. I have never betrayed my calling. Although, as I have already said, this is my second Hamlet. I have thought a lot lately. In general, perhaps active journalism and investigative reporting–probably that is all over for me. I have already been through it.
I have suffered a great deal during this time, and I no longer want it myself. But I ask that I not be legally deprived of it, because a court’s word is like law. Because it is terrible. It is civil death. This was practised in Tsarist Russia and in the Soviet Union. What about speaking at conferences, public activities, writing and publishing?..
For me, publicistic writing is very important. It is part of my identity. You cannot deprive a person of their identity. This is simply excessive cruelty, and it is not characteristic of our state, because Kazakhstan will never be like that. It is not a cruel state, not a totalitarian one. Yes, it is a developing state, but not that. You cannot deprive a person of who they are.
I am not even talking here about being deprived of my livelihood. This would deprive me of myself. I will make my own decision based on my difficult experience, all the suffering, all the bullying from the public. I am making this decision because I was called upon to be arrested, punished, torn apart and crucified not only by representatives of the authorities, but also by society and human rights defenders. Because I provided information that was supposedly not officially confirmed, yes? Well, because they did not want to confirm it for some reason or other. Well, did the person die or not–and should one say so? Why was this denied? Well, this is what our society is like.
Therefore, I have rethought a great deal about my profession. But I ask that I not be deprived of it. I will make a very firm decision myself. I will not engage in active journalism. But publicistic writing is very important to me. Conferences are very important to me. I will not be able to live without them. And entrepreneurship–that is also completely unclear to me what this is about. What are we talking about? I cannot buy something in one place, even officially registering it, and sell it somewhere else? I cannot make a profit out of nothing? What is entrepreneurship? What is journalism?..
That is my final statement.
August 18, 2026,
Bostandyk District Court, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Source: Vadim Boreyko,
Photo: Forbes KAZAKHSTAN.