Although the idea is not new, it is becoming particularly relevant against the backdrop of criticism of the work of special services and sharp personnel reshuffles in the GKNB.
Photo from the internet
The discussion emphasizes the need for institutional reform of investigative bodies, which implies a review of the entire structure of criminal investigation.
Currently, investigative functions are distributed among various bodies, such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), GKNB, and tax services, which leads to overlaps in jurisdiction and dependence of the investigation on operational services.
In this context, the creation of a separate and independent investigative body is being discussed.
Felix Kulov, a former prime minister, finds the idea of creating an Investigative Committee interesting, but warns against hasty decisions.
In his opinion, transferring all investigative functions into one body could prove to be a complex task both organizationally and financially. This requires not only a redistribution of powers but also the creation of new infrastructure, training personnel, constructing buildings, and ensuring a material and technical base.
Kulov suggests a phased approach: at the first stage, an investigative service could be created under the president with regional divisions, which would deal with the investigation of certain categories of official crimes.
He also considers it advisable to leave the investigation of cases of treason and espionage under the jurisdiction of the GKNB, while transferring general criminal offenses to the MVD. Specialized units could handle tax crimes. Such a phased approach, in Kulov's opinion, would help avoid system overload and management chaos.
In contrast, Iskhak Masaliev, a former deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh, does not support the idea of creating a "clean" investigative committee. He believes that a specialized anti-corruption service with effective parliamentary and public oversight could be more beneficial for the country.
In his opinion, the name of the body is less important than the presence of accountability and transparency mechanisms. Without a control system, the new law enforcement body may face the same problems as existing structures.
Kanat Khasanov, a lawyer, reminded that the idea of creating an investigative committee was discussed even before 2017, when a draft law was being developed. He acknowledges that the IC itself is necessary, but much will depend on its structure.
If the new body is given only official crimes, it may become an instrument of repression.
Kanat Khasanov
If the investigative committee is tasked with investigating serious and particularly serious crimes, this will help align the system with international standards. In this case, district divisions could be reorganized into inquiry institutes, and the structure of the investigation would undergo significant changes.
Thus, the discussion of creating an Investigative Committee touches not only on technical aspects but also on the choice of a law enforcement system model for the long term. It concerns the balance between centralization and independence, as well as between efficiency and control.
Against the backdrop of reforming the GKNB and calls for systemic updates of law enforcement agencies, the question of creating the IC becomes part of a broader institutional transformation of the state. The decision to create a new body and its format will determine not only the structure of the investigation but also the level of public trust in the justice system as a whole.
