The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), openDemocracy and the Telegraph received several “preliminary action” letters between May and August, claiming their reports were inaccurate and caused financial losses to a UK-registered company. A claim was subsequently filed in the high court on August 16, but the publishers have yet to be served. The legal action has reignited the debate over whether strategic public participation lawsuits (Slapps) are being used to silence public interest journalism. Dominic Raab, who was justice secretary until he was ousted by Liz Truss, announced proposals in July to give courts in England and Wales greater powers to dismiss legal actions against journalists and publishers who write in the public interest, which were found to be devoid of value at an early stage. The claim against TBIJ, openDemocracy and the Telegraph was brought on behalf of Jusan Technologies, a company registered at Companies House in the UK, and the Nazarbayev Fund Private Fund. The fund is also suing the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Scheme (OCCRP) in the US, claiming more than $75,000 (£68,000) in damages and punitive damages. The articles complained of referred to allegations of financial ties between Jusan, the Nazarbayev fund, and Nazarbayev and his family. Lawyers for Jusan and the fund said the allegations were inaccurate and defamatory. US law firm Boies Schiller Flexner was hired to represent Jusan and the fund, and said it was not representing Nazarbayev. A spokesman for the fund and Jusan said: “We look forward to proving in court that the report challenged in the lawsuits is false. We are not owned, controlled by, or benefit from Mr. Nazarbayev. Our sole mission is to support public education in Kazakhstan.” Nazarbayev is credited as the “chairman of the supreme board for the Nazarbayev Fund (NF),” but a source familiar with the matter – who declined to be named – said he had not played an active role in the fund’s operations or operation. and never had, directly or indirectly, a role or relationship with Jusan. Peter Geoghegan, the editor-in-chief of openDemocracy, defended the accuracy of the investigation and said he believed the legal action was a “clear attempt to intimidate independent investigative journalism”. He added: “We are a small, not-for-profit media organization threatened by rich and powerful organizations for reporting what we believe is in the public interest.” The Telegraph did not respond to requests for comment. TBIJ and openDemocracy warned that defending themselves in the high court could wipe out all their funding, which would have a profound effect on their ability to continue to pursue public interest journalism. They said the claims were “potentially financially devastating”. The two stores have already spent tens of thousands of pounds on the case. Geoghegan said: “OpenDemocracy and the Office of Investigative Journalism have taken the unusual step of going public with this because we believe it is important for people to understand how legal threats are used in this country and because we are determined to defend ourselves.” He pointed out that, for now, defending claims deemed slaps could “cost a fortune, resulting in many defendants being banned from the game and other reporters being discouraged from further investigations.” Geoghegan added: “This case has already cost openDemocracy tens of thousands of pounds and we need the public’s help to defend ourselves.” The source familiar with the dispute insisted the legal claim should not be described as a slap in the face. Subscribe to Business Today Get ready for the business day – we’ll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. They said: “To characterize them as such would falsely assume that they were not filed in good faith and therefore assume the truth of the falsehoods in the publications.” They added that the fund and Jusan had the right to take legal action to vindicate their reputations in relation to false and damaging claims and to stop the publication of such falsehoods. Rozina Breen, chief executive of TBIJ, said: “We strongly believe this [sort of] Vital public interest journalism is essential to a functioning and transparent democracy and is an absolute necessity to ensure sound economic governance and accountability.” The slaps came into focus after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent imposition of sanctions on oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. Some have previously been involved in high-profile lawsuits against journalists and book publishers. As part of its response to the Slapps inquiry, the government had also proposed a cap on the costs – to “allow meritless cases to be properly defended” – that can be incurred by ministers under secondary law without the need for parliamentary approval. Nik Williams, head of policy and campaigns at Index on Censorship, said the threat facing publishers seemed “emblematic of the growing use of Slapps to target and silence open reporting”. He added: “For too long, the UK has been the center of legal threats from the world’s rich, powerful and opaque to stifle media freedom and the public’s right to know. “In July, the UK Government pledged to introduce a range of measures to target Slapps, and these threats demonstrate the urgency of the issue. We stand in solidarity with openDemocracy and TBIJ, and all others facing such threats, and reiterate our call for swift and bold action that protects free expression.” OCCRP, a US-registered non-profit news network, is the subject of a defamation complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland on July 29. Kazakhstan ranks 122nd out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index. Nazarbayev was the country’s president from 1991 until he stepped down in 2019.
