Nearly a year after the assassination of Kazakh opposition journalist Aidos Sadykov in Kyiv, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Kazakhstan has formally notified its Ukrainian counterpart that it does not intend to interrogate suspects linked to the case.
The announcement has intensified scrutiny of Kazakhstan’s willingness to support the investigation and fuelled allegations of political interference.
Sadykov was shot outside his home in the Ukrainian capital in June 2023. Ukrainian authorities swiftly identified two Kazakh nationals as prime suspects, both reportedly with past affiliations to Kazakhstan’s security apparatus. Kyiv issued international arrest warrants for the men and obtained court approval for their detention in absentia.
One of the suspects, Altai Zhakanbayev, later turned himself in to Kazakh law enforcement. The whereabouts of the second individual, Miram Karatayev, remain officially unknown. Despite Zhakanbayev’s voluntary surrender, Kazakh prosecutors have stated they will neither extradite him to Ukraine nor conduct a formal interrogation. The rationale provided is that the Ukrainian authorities have not presented sufficient evidence linking him directly to the crime.
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from observers and Sadykov’s widow, Natalia Sadykova, who has publicly accused the Kazakh state — and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev personally — of complicity. The suspects’ reported ties to Kazakh security agencies have added weight to these claims and raised concerns about the nature of their involvement.
Initially, Kazakh authorities expressed readiness to cooperate with Ukrainian investigators. However, this stance appears to have shifted. With no meaningful progress or transparency on the part of the Kazakh side, speculation has grown that official institutions may be reluctant to expose uncomfortable details about the suspects’ backgrounds or potential motives.
The question remains: why did Zhakanbayev surrender to Kazakh law enforcement if, as officials claim, there is no credible evidence against him? The refusal to interrogate him, even in Kazakhstan, further deepens the uncertainty.
Comparisons have been drawn between Sadykov’s killing and the 2000 murder of Ukrainian investigative journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Gongadze’s death, which also involved political implications and allegations of state involvement, became a defining moment in Ukraine’s modern political history. Audio recordings allegedly implicating then-president Leonid Kuchma sparked widespread outrage and contributed to the 2004 Orange Revolution. However, despite the conviction of several perpetrators, the question of who ordered the assassination remains unresolved.
The Sadykov case carries similar political resonance but under different circumstances. Unlike Gongadze, Sadykov had left his country and was living in exile. He had sought refuge in Ukraine due to concerns for his safety and his inability to continue his journalistic activities freely in Kazakhstan. His assassination in a third country, during wartime conditions in Ukraine, raises broader questions about the reach of repressive tactics and the risks faced by political exiles.
Critics argue that the apparent unwillingness of Kazakh authorities to pursue the case rigorously signals more than a lack of evidence. For many, it is an indication of institutional disinterest, if not deliberate obstruction. The fact that both suspects remain in Kazakhstan and that the investigation is effectively stalled places the burden of suspicion squarely on the country’s leadership and its security institutions, notably the National Security Committee (KNB).
The failure to pursue justice not only leaves the murder unsolved but also casts a lasting shadow over Kazakhstan’s international image. In the absence of credible legal action, allegations of state involvement will likely persist and become entrenched in the narrative surrounding the case.
For President Tokayev, the unresolved nature of the Sadykov investigation risks becoming a long-term liability. Inaction may suggest that the state is either shielding the perpetrators or unwilling to uncover the motives behind the killing. Transparency in this case could help distance the political leadership from suspicion and affirm Kazakhstan’s stated commitment to legal norms. Its absence may do the opposite.
More broadly, the case has reignited debate over media freedom and the safety of journalists from authoritarian environments, even in exile. If Kazakh opposition voices can be targeted beyond the country’s borders with apparent impunity, it raises difficult questions for governments and organisations that provide refuge to such individuals.
Until Kazakh prosecutors commit to a full and independent investigation, or allow for genuine cooperation with their Ukrainian counterparts, the suspicion surrounding Sadykov’s murder is likely to endure. The killing has become not only a human tragedy but also a politically sensitive episode in Kazakhstan’s recent history, one that may ultimately shape public perception of its leadership for years to come.
