Karybek uulu, for his part, supported the initiative but emphasized that a law cannot be adopted by violating rules. He pointed out the inconsistency between the approved amendments and those actually being made to three codes, despite the mention of five.
“If the amendments do not pertain to all the mentioned codes, then why mention them in the justification note? The regulations require a clear indication of all changes,” he stated.
In response, Aliyev said that the process of passing a law can be lengthy and sometimes omissions may occur, which will be corrected. However, Karybek uulu continued to insist that such inconsistencies are a serious problem.
“This is a technical issue,” Aliyev reiterated. He added that the staff of the Jogorku Kenesh confirmed that such errors do not affect the overall meaning of the bill.
Aliyev explained that the justification note is merely the opinion of a deputy, and even a first-year law student knows this. “We are voting for the bill, not for the note,” he said, emphasizing that the document may contain different viewpoints.
“The note cannot contain nonsense. We should not mislead the deputies,” Karybek uulu added, pointing out the need for a more professional approach to document preparation.
“In the note, you assert that changes are being made to these laws, while in reality, the amendments do not concern all of them. Attention to detail is necessary,” he concluded.Committee Chairman Suyunbek Omurzakov reminded that during the first reading, it is important to discuss the concept, not disputes among deputies. He urged participants to focus on the essence of the bill.
Aliyev agreed with him; however, Karybek uulu continued to ask questions about the amendments to the Family Code, to which Aliyev responded by reading the text of the article.
“We should discuss the bill, not individual notes,” Aliyev emphasized, calling for legal accuracy in the questions.
Karybek uulu and other deputies then proposed their additions and comments. At the end of the discussion, the deputy called for the bill to be rejected to address the shortcomings.
“You initially spoke about supporting the concept, and now you are against it?” Omurzakov clarified.
Karybek uulu replied that he considers the law necessary, but one should not violate other regulatory documents.
Suyunbek Omurzakov emphasized the importance of the bill and the need for its discussion, including organizing a round table for a more detailed analysis.
Aliyev agreed with his opinion and noted that deputies should carefully study the content of the bill.
“The justification note reflects only the legislator's position, and it is not worth asking illiterate questions,” he added, noting that it is important to conduct discussions in accordance with the legislation.
“I am interested in discussing all issues, but in compliance with the law. It is wrong when inexperienced people try to gain popularity without grasping the essence,” he concluded.Karybek uulu attempted to respond, but his microphone was turned off. The argument continued even with the microphone off, leading to a heated reaction from other deputies.
Omurzakov urged colleagues to maintain authority and respect for the committee, reminding them of the importance of a professional approach in discussions.
As a result, the committee approved the concept of the bill in the first reading.
This is not the first time that Mederbek Aliyev and Ulukbek Karybek uulu find themselves at the center of heated debates.
