In Jumashiev's opinion, Uezbaev was unjustly accused of committing a crime. He noted that the initiator of the criminal case was the conclusion of a working group engaged in the implementation of the Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS).
“At the first hearing in the Oktyabrsky District Court, the main focus was on the witnesses — members of the working group, who generally signed this conclusion. However, it turned out that almost all of them disagreed with the commission's findings and do not believe that the actions of Uezbaev and other defendants contain signs of a crime,” the lawyer shared.
Jumashiev also emphasized that the investigator relies entirely on the conclusions of the commission. “While reviewing the interrogations, I noticed that they are almost identical. The interrogation protocols show that the investigator used the same questions, only changing the names of the witnesses. Moreover, the interrogations were conducted in an accusatory manner, without attempts to clarify the objective circumstances of the case. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the interrogation protocol is one type of evidence, but in this case, they cannot be considered admissible due to violations,” the lawyer expressed his position.
He added that Uezbaev acted within the powers provided for the position of department director, which is subordinate to the city hall. “The court hearings showed that all actions for the implementation of the ATMS were coordinated with the management, regular meetings were held, and there are protocols of these meetings in which the first deputy mayor and the mayor participated,” he pointed out.
Jumashiev also noted that another defendant in the case was released under house arrest. “According to Article 18, Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the parties in a criminal process should be equal. However, inequality manifested itself in the fact that one of the defendants had their preventive measure changed to house arrest, while this was not done for Uezbaev. In December 2025, his preventive measure was extended until February 5, 2026, which effectively means that he should have been released on February 5,” the lawyer said.
According to him, on that day they submitted a motion to the court to change the preventive measure to house arrest, as there were no grounds for keeping Uezbaev in custody anymore. However, the judge extended an already non-existent preventive measure, which raises serious questions.
In light of the above, Jumashiev called on the Prosecutor General to take action against the judge and asked the president to pay attention to this case and take it under control. Uezbaev's relatives also appealed to the president, requesting intervention and his release from custody.
