In recent years, Kazakhstan has undertaken a far-reaching reform of its judicial system, grounded in the belief that judicial independence is a structural condition to be engineered. Institutional reform has guided our efforts to ensure that courts are composed of professionals selected on merit, insulated from undue influence, and held to high standards of integrity and accountability.
As Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council of Kazakhstan, I have had the opportunity to oversee one of the most complex aspects of these reforms: the formation and career development of the judiciary. The Council is an autonomous body responsible for guaranteeing the constitutional powers of the President to form an independent and professional court system. But our role extends beyond appointments. We are reshaping the architecture that supports the rule of law itself.
From Centralised Control to Distributed Oversight
Historically, like in many developing legal systems, Kazakhstan’s judiciary struggled with an excessive concentration of procedural authority in the hands of a few. Decisions about judicial appointments, promotions, or disciplinary proceedings were often filtered through the leadership of the Supreme Court. While this was administratively expedient, it posed systemic risks to both independence and public trust.
That structure has now changed.
Today, the Supreme Judicial Council operates with a high degree of institutional separation from the courts it helps form. Judges are no longer appointed through closed-door mechanisms. Instead, all candidates must pass a rigorous multi-stage qualification process that includes legal knowledge testing, essay writing, ethical assessments, case-solving tasks, psychological testing, and an interview. In select cases, a polygraph test is also used. The stages are video-recorded and publicly available. Feedback from citizens about candidates is solicited and reviewed.
This structure ensures that no single individual or entity can exert undue influence over the formation of the bench. It also gives the broader legal community and the public a voice in shaping the judiciary, something that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
One of the most significant innovations introduced in 2023 was the partial introduction of electoral mechanisms for the judiciary. Candidates for the Supreme Court are now submitted to the Senate by the President from a shortlist recommended by the Supreme Judicial Council, on an alternative basis. This means that at least two candidates must be presented for each vacancy, and the Senate, not the executive, makes the final decision.
Likewise, chairs of district courts are now selected through extended plenary sessions of courts, composed only of peers from the judiciary. This internal electoral process empowers judges themselves to choose their local leadership. It is a subtle but powerful step towards professional autonomy.
While these reforms do not replace formal appointment processes, they serve as counterweights to potential top-down interference. Institutional independence is about giving the judiciary a voice in its own governance.
Reforming Judicial Accountability
Independence, however, is not immunity. A judiciary that cannot be held accountable is not serving the rule of law, it is operating outside of it.
Kazakhstan has overhauled the disciplinary system by transferring the Judicial Jury, a body that reviews misconduct allegations, out of the Supreme Court and into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council. The Jury has been expanded to include 15 members, representing all levels of the judiciary as well as the legal community. It no longer has the authority to unilaterally initiate cases. Submissions now must come from higher judicial bodies and are subject to strict legal definitions, including the codified concept of “gross violation of the law.”
This redistribution of powers addresses past concerns about the impartiality of disciplinary mechanisms. A judge accused of misconduct now has the right to review the full case file in advance and may be represented by legal counsel during proceedings. In essence, procedural fairness is now embedded in the very body tasked with upholding ethical standards in the judiciary.
Importantly, our focus on accountability also aims to improve the quality of justice. New legislation requires the Judicial Jury to review all court decisions annulled due to gross legal errors. This ensures that mistakes are not only corrected but understood, assessed, and, where necessary, sanctioned.
Furthermore, it is our view that judicial competence must be built on more than legal knowledge. It requires ethical reasoning, communication skills, and moral judgment.
Exactly one year ago, the Academy of Justice was transferred from the Supreme Court to the Council’s jurisdiction to ensure alignment between training and real-world judicial responsibilities.
The Academy now offers postgraduate master’s and doctoral programs with a strong emphasis on research and ethics. For the first time, the Academy has received international accreditation as a scientific institution, enabling broader cooperation and mobility. Yet we recognize that challenges remain. The Academy’s physical infrastructure is outdated, limiting its ability to host international training or exchange programs. We are constructing a new campus this year as part of a broader strategy to turn the Academy into a regional hub for judicial excellence.
Still, the greater challenge is not physical but conceptual. Judges today must not only know the law, but know how to communicate it persuasively, uphold its dignity, and embody the trust the public places in them. We are retooling our educational programs to reflect this, integrating so-called “soft skills” into core judicial training.
Work in Progress
We are under no illusion that institutional reform alone guarantees justice. No legal system is immune to pressure, inertia, or failure. Kazakhstan’s judiciary, like others around the world, must earn public trust not just through reform on paper but through behavior in courtrooms, transparency in appointments, and restraint in power.
Our reforms are part of an evolving process of learning, adaptation, and engagement. We do not claim to have found a perfect model, but we do believe we are moving in the right direction.
In a world where the rule of law is under strain in many places, Kazakhstan is investing in its foundations. Judicial independence cannot be declared into existence. It must be designed, protected, and constantly reinforced.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
