Ulukbek Karybek uulu, supporting the initiative, expressed doubts about the legality of adopting the document. He noted that the explanatory note mentions amendments to the Penal Enforcement, Civil, Family Codes, and the Code on Children, but in fact, the amendments concern only three of them.
“If the changes do not pertain to the other codes, then why are they mentioned in the explanatory note? According to the regulations, all amendments must be clearly specified,” he emphasized.
Aliyev, for his part, explained that the process of adopting the draft law can be complicated and that errors may arise, which will be corrected later. However, Karybek uulu insisted that the omission in the note is a serious flaw.
According to Mederbek Aliyev, this issue is technical in nature. A staff member of the Jogorku Kenesh also confirmed that such discrepancies will be taken into account and will not affect the essence of the draft law.
Aliyev also clarified that the explanatory note is not a decisive document in the adoption of the draft law. “Even a first-year law student can tell you that. We vote for the draft law, not for its justification. This is merely a viewpoint of a deputy and may differ from the opinions of others,” he noted.
“When adopting a law, ambiguities in the explanatory note cannot be allowed. This can be perceived as an attempt to mislead the deputies,” Karybek uulu added.
He emphasized that it is important for all changes to be clearly outlined in the note; otherwise, it creates an impression of unprofessionalism.Committee Chairman Suyunbek Omurzakov urged deputies to focus on discussing the concept of the draft law rather than on disputes.
Mederbek Aliyev agreed with his opinion and continued the discussion, answering Karybek uulu's questions about the amendments to the Family Code.
Karybek uulu and other deputies expressed their suggestions and remarks regarding the content of the draft law. At the end of the discussion, Karybek uulu proposed to reject the draft law for corrections.
In response, Omurzakov noted that Karybek uulu had previously supported the concept and is now opposing it. “You should have listened to me more carefully. I said that the law is necessary, but other norms must be observed,” Karybek uulu replied.
Suyunbek Omurzakov emphasized the importance of discussing the draft law and suggested organizing a round table for a more detailed analysis.
Mederbek Aliyev agreed with this and noted the need for a thorough study of the draft law by the deputies.
“The explanatory note is merely the opinion of the legislator. There is no need to ask superficial questions and try to gain popularity by criticizing those with more experience,” he added.
Aliyev also noted that it is important to respect the experience of the employees working in this field.Karybek uulu began to respond, but his microphone was turned off. “You didn’t ask for permission. Here, deputies request the floor, and you must address them first,” Omurzakov said.
The dispute between Aliyev and Karybek uulu continued even with the microphone off.
The committee chairman urged deputies to maintain calm and respect for their colleagues, as the discussion should be conducted in a constructive manner. The committee ultimately approved the concept of the draft law in the first reading.
This incident became yet another example of heated debates between Mederbek Aliyev and Ulukbek Karybek uulu.
