NAPP files complaint against Otabek Bakirov with the MDIA

The National Agency for Prospective Projects(NAPP) has filed a complaint against economist-blogger Otabek Bakirov with the Main Department of Internal Affairs (MDIA) of Tashkent. The complaint was triggered by his post titled “Illegal super-regulator,” written in response to the banning of the TEMU platform. Bakirov announced this on his social media page.

The agency considers Bakirov’s post an attempt to discredit it.

The complaint was reportedly signed by the First Deputy Head of the Agency, Vyacheslav Pak. An explanatory letter from the agency’s authorized representative was also attached. The complaint is currently under review by the Cybersecurity Department of the Tashkent Internal Affairs Department.

“Last night, I submitted preliminary explanations to the investigation both in writing and orally (a copy of the case documents has not yet been provided),” wrote Otabek Bakirov.

The economist also attached four posts he had written to date regarding the ban on the TEMU platform. The post that prompted the agency’s complaint reads:

“The National Agency for Prospective Projects has become a regulator of insurance, capital, crypto-assets, and e-commerce in Uzbekistan without any legal framework. There is no law that restrains or regulates its activities or prevents conflicts of interest. Therefore, in practice, the agency can do as it pleases and carry out any experiments it desires—both officially and unofficially (the latter being a separate taboo and a deeply rooted issue).

No one remembers that in 2017, this agency was created for entirely different tasks and objectives. Come on, bless us—let's remember that for a moment.

Then, especially over the past three years, it was repeatedly granted new powers, which were transferred from other bodies, and its leadership was empowered with extraordinary administrative resources, turning it into a super-regulator. Throughout this process, no one asked, ‘Wait, first, where is the law on the super-regulator? Let's define it in legislation.’

This is the result. We now have another bureaucratic dragon that can make any destructive or unilateral decision it wants, at any time. We have built the system not on the law, but on loyal individuals. We created them from nothing.

We will face many consequences and pay a lot in compensation. We are already banging our heads against the wall—or rather, punishing ourselves.”

According to Bakirov, the complaint only raised objections and dissatisfaction with this specific post and did not address the content of the other posts or the reasons behind writing them.

Persecution of journalists and bloggers

Tashkent State Law University professors R. Altiyev and O. Narziyev filed a lawsuit against human rights activist Abdurakhmon Tashanov over his post titled “I feel sorry for you, gentlemen,” accusing him of “slandering their honor, dignity, and professional reputation,” and demanded 200 million sums in moral damages. A court hearing began on April 11.

MY5 TV channel correspondent Rukhsora Gafurova reported that in the Jizzakh region, an employee of the People’s Bank had issued loans in the names of several citizens and opened an inquiry into embezzlement. The applicants stated that for two years, their monthly and pension payments had been transferred to the bank due to loans issued in their names by a bank employee. Following this report, an administrative case was opened. However, it was not against the bank employee who allegedly issued the loans and embezzled the funds, but against the journalist who reported the issue.

The bank employee was dissatisfied with the disclosure of his name during the journalistic investigation and sued the journalist. However, during the inquiry, the citizen himself had disclosed the identity of the bank employee in whose name the loan had been issued. Therefore, the journalist’s lawyer argued that no laws or regulations were violated. According to the defense, Rukhsora Gafurova did not commit an administrative offense or take any actions aimed at disclosing personal information. The case against her for allegedly disclosing personal information to the public was dismissed due to the expiration of the statutory time limit for consideration.