(Kazakhstan — April 7, 2026) In a court trial that has sparked widespread controversy, linguistics experts appointed by Kazakh authorities delivered testimony that has stunned legal scholars. Under the country’s current judicial logic, merely mentioning the word “China,” or even remaining silent at a protest, may be sufficient to constitute a criminal offense of inciting ethnic hatred.

The case originated from a protest on November 13 of last year. Activists gathered on an open stretch of land to demand that Chinese authorities release a Kazakh truck driver arbitrarily detained in Xinjiang. Kazakh authorities subsequently arrested 19 members of the human rights organization “Atajurt Kazakh Human Rights.” The group has long worked to expose the situation of ethnic Kazakhs in Xinjiang, an issue that remains a sensitive fault line for the government of Kazakhstan as it seeks to maintain diplomatic relations with Beijing.

After months of efforts by defense attorney Shynikuat Baizhanov and sustained international attention, two official experts, Gulnar Kudaybergenova and Shyrin Moldasheva, finally appeared in court to testify on April 2.

This courtroom confrontation was not only a legal contest but also exposed a long-standing “black box” within Kazakhstan’s judicial system: how authorities use vague, opaque “linguistic assessments” to package political dissent as criminal charges.

“Are the State and the People Not One?”

The core issue in the trial centered on an accusation of the police: whether the defendants’ actions constituted “incitement of ethnic hatred or discord.”

During exchanges between defense lawyer Baizhanov and expert Moldasheva, the boundary between legal reasoning and political accusation became blurred and fragile. When the lawyer pointed out that the defendants were targeting the Chinese government rather than the Chinese people, Moldasheva responded with a heavily politicized statement: “Are the state and the people not one? Without the people, there is no state.”

This conflation of government authority with national identity was particularly evident in the case of defendant Guldariya Sherizat. Sherizat’s sole demand was for the Chinese government to release her husband, yet Moldasheva insisted this constituted incitement to hatred.

Lawyer: “Which of her words exactly incited ethnic hatred?”

Moldasheva: “She said the word ‘China.’”

The Disappearance of Methodology

Even more troubling to legal observers was that forensic experts concluded that defendants who did not speak at all during the protest, even those who remained silent throughout, also exhibited signs of “incitement.”

Moldasheva explained that burning a national flag constituted incitement in itself. However, when pressed by the lawyer to explain the academic methods, evaluative standards, or scientific basis for her conclusions, the state-certified expert refused to provide details.

“I cannot disclose this method,” Moldasheva insisted in court, stating that these standards were ones they “use internally,” and declined to clarify whether they were considered state secrets.

Overreach of Judicial Power

Critics argue that such so-called “linguistic assessments” have become a convenient tool for suppressing freedom of expression in Kazakhstan. Under this system, law enforcement appoints experts with particular political leanings to characterize speech, and judges often adopt these conclusions directly as the basis for rulings.

Although defense lawyer Baizhanov attempted to demonstrate that linguists have no authority to define the complex criminal concept of “incitement to hatred,” the current political and judicial environment in Kazakhstan leaves these 19 activists facing the risks of severe sentencing.

As Beijing’s economic and political influence in Central Asia continues to grow, authorities of Kazakhstan appear increasingly sensitive in handling public protest sentiment. This trial is not only a judgment on the fate of the 19 defendants, but also a profound test of how long Kazakhstan can maintain a balance between its economic dependence on China and the protection of its citizens’ fundamental freedoms.

Gao Zhensai, Special Correspondent for ChinaAid