Judge Mukhtarama Turgunova © Kun.uz

The prosecution of four former judges has raised broader questions about judicial accountability and judicial independence in Uzbekistan.

The criminal trial of four former judges of the Tashkent City Court stems from an appellate ruling that temporarily released businessman Akmal Shukurov in December 2025. Shukurov had been convicted of fraud, hooliganism, and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm after prosecutors accused him of defrauding a business partner and seriously injuring a man during a violent altercation outside a Tashkent restaurant. On appeal, the Tashkent City Court reduced his sentence from eight years and one month in prison to four years and one month of restricted liberty. After crediting the time he had already spent in detention, the court ordered his immediate release. Nine days later, the ruling was overturned through supervisory review, Shukurov was returned to prison, and the judges who had ordered his early release later became defendants in a criminal case themselves.

The defendants are former judges Mukhtarama Turgunova, Odilbek Ilhomjonov, and Mirziyod Obidov, together with Murodjon Mirzajonov, the former deputy chair of the Tashkent City Court’s Criminal Chamber. Prosecutors allege that the three former judges knowingly issued an unlawful ruling in violation of Article 231 of the Criminal Code, while Mirzajonov also faces charges under Article 236 for alleged interference with the administration of justice. Three defendants were released on bail in April 2026 after several months in pretrial detention. Mirzajonov remains in custody.

The prosecution has drawn unusual attention within Uzbekistan’s legal community. More than 50 lawyers have joined the judges’ defense team, arguing that the case concerns a judicial decision rather than allegations of criminal activity such as bribery, corruption, or personal gain. They contend that disagreements over judicial reasoning should be resolved through appellate review rather than criminal prosecution.

The case has also sparked extensive debate across Uzbek social media. Supporters of the prosecution argue that judges who knowingly issue unlawful rulings should be held criminally accountable, while others warn that prosecuting judges for decisions later overturned on appeal could undermine judicial independence. It now needs to be determined whether the former judges knowingly issued an unlawful ruling, as prosecutors allege, or if they are being prosecuted for a judicial decision that should have been corrected through the ususal appeals process.

The Shukurov case

The prosecution of the former judges arose directly from the criminal proceedings against Akmal Shukurov who was convicted of committing both financial and violent crimes in separate incidents between 2022 and 2025.

According to court materials cited by BBC Uzbek, one of Shukurov’s convictions related to large-scale fraud. The court found that he accepted €215,000 after promising to import three Mercedes-Benz minibuses from Germany but failed to deliver two of them, causing losses estimated at approximately €191,600.

The most serious conviction related to violent assault. According to the judgment, during the early hours of March 16, 2025, Shukurov was involved in an altercation outside a restaurant near the Tower Hotel in Tashkent’s Yakkasaroy district. During the incident, he allegedly punched a man who had attempted to stop the fight. The victim sustained life threatening head injuries, underwent emergency brain surgery, and was placed in an induced coma. After the incident, Shukurov left Uzbekistan but was later arrested in Kazakhstan and extradited.

On October 24, 2025, the Mirzo Ulugbek District Criminal Court found Shukurov guilty of fraud, hooliganism, and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to eight years and one month in prison. The case appeared settled until the Criminal Chamber of the Tashkent City Court reconsidered the judgment on appeal. On December 9, 2025, the appellate court reduced the sentence after applying Article 57 of the Criminal Code, citing mitigating circumstances that included compensation for financial losses, partial admission of guilt, and statements from victims that they no longer maintained claims against the defendant. After crediting the time, he had already spent in detention, the court ordered his immediate release.

The ruling immediately generated public debate. In a legal analysis, Uzbek media outlet Kun.uz compared the decision with several other criminal cases involving serious violent offenses and questioned why Shukurov received a substantially lighter sentence than defendants convicted of similar crimes. Nine days later, after the Tashkent City Prosecutor’s Office had challenged the appellate decision, a supervisory panel overturned the ruling and imposed a new sentence of six years’ imprisonment. Within days, the judges who had participated in the appellate decision were dismissed before the expiration of their judicial terms. Prosecutors later brought criminal charges against all four former judges.

The prosecution and defense

The trial of the four judges opened before the Tashkent Regional Court on July 24, 2026. At the opening hearing, defense lawyers challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the legality of decisions issued by judges of the Tashkent City Court should be reviewed by the Supreme Court rather than a regional court. The court rejected the motion and ordered the trial to proceed.

Defense lawyers also argued that criminal liability should not arise simply because a higher court later overturns a judicial decision. Speaking to BBC Uzbek, lawyer Abdumalik Abdullayev said the case concerns the independence of judges rather than allegations of corruption. Lawyer Muxsinjon Madaminov similarly argued that the outcome could affect how judges approach future cases, particularly those involving significant public attention. According to the defense, disputes over judicial reasoning should normally be resolved through appellate or supervisory review rather than criminal prosecution.

The former judges have also petitioned the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, alleging that their detention and prosecution violate guarantees protecting judicial independence. According to the defense, the complaint also raises concerns about pressure exerted on the defendants during the investigation.

At the July 31 hearing, prosecutors formally presented the indictment before the court. The hearing focused largely on procedural motions. The court granted a defense request requiring investigators to disclose an audio recording included in the case file but rejected motions to replace Mirzajonov’s detention with a less restrictive measure, allow the Ezgulik Human Rights Society to participate as a public defender, and remove the presiding judge. The court did approve a request allowing journalists and bloggers to record the proceedings using their own equipment.

Following a hearing on August 3, human rights defender Gulnoz Mamarasulova spoke with former judge Mukhtarama Turgunova. In addition to defending the appellate ruling, Turgunova made several allegations concerning her treatment during the investigation. She claimed that investigators repeatedly pressured her to testify against former Deputy Chair Murodjon Mirzajonov, that she was unlawfully placed in the same detention cell as a woman she had previously sentenced while serving as a judge, and that after being released on bail she was mistakenly detained as a wanted person.

Judicial accountability and judicial independence

Shortly before the trial opened, former judge Mukhtarama Turgunova released a public statement defending the decision ordering Shukurov’s early release,denied wrongdoing by the appellate panel, and argued that judges should not face criminal prosecution solely because a higher court later overturns one of their decisions. She also said investigators had found no evidence of corruption or illicit financial gain.

“We examined the case lawfully and fairly,” Turgunova said in her statement. “If judges can be prosecuted because a higher court later overturns their decisions, who can guarantee that ordinary citizens will not face similar unlawful actions?”

Prosecutors have not publicly responded to those arguments while the trial is ongoing. The court is instead expected to determine whether the evidence supports the charges that the defendants knowingly issued an unlawful ruling and, in the case of former Deputy Chair Murodjon Mirzajonov, unlawfully interfered with the administration of justice.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 7, 2026. Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are likely to influence future discussions in Uzbekistan about judicial accountability, judicial independence, and the safeguards intended to protect both.