Ulukbek Karybek uulu, supporting the initiative, expressed doubts about the legality of the process. He pointed out the inconsistency between the stated changes and the actual ones. "The explanatory note outlines amendments to the Penal Enforcement, Civil, Family Codes, and the Code on Children, however, the amendments only pertain to three of them," he emphasized.
"If this is the case, then why are other codes mentioned in the justification note?" Karybek uulu questioned, to which Aliyev replied that there could be technical errors that would be corrected.
Nevertheless, Karybek uulu continued to insist that the absence of amendments in certain codes is a serious misunderstanding that requires attention.
Aliyev, for his part, pointed out that this is merely a technical aspect and introduced a staff member from the Jogorku Kenesh apparatus, who confirmed that such discrepancies would not affect the essence of the bill.
He added that "even a first-year law student knows this," as the justification note does not have a direct influence on the adoption of the bill. "We vote for the bill, not for the note," he explained.
Karybek uulu, in turn, emphasized that the note should not contain ambiguities. "This could be perceived as an attempt to mislead the deputies," he noted, calling for a more professional approach.
According to him, all changes in the laws must be clearly indicated, leaving no uncertainties.The committee chairman, Suyunbek Omurzakov, tried to shift the focus to the concept of the bill, reminding that this is not the time for disputes among deputies.
Aliyev agreed with him, but when Karybek uulu asked about specific amendments to the Family Code, Aliyev read their content.
However, the discussion continued, and Karybek uulu along with other deputies offered their comments and additions. At the end of the meeting, he insisted that the bill be rejected to address the shortcomings.
"At first, you said you supported the concept, and now you are against it?" Omurzakov clarified.
To this, Karybek uulu replied that the law is needed, but it is important to comply with all regulatory documents.
Omurzakov emphasized that the bill requires further discussion and more detailed analysis, including a round table to work out the details.
Aliyev agreed on the necessity to study the content of the law and pointed out that the justification note merely reflects the legislator's position. "There is no need to ask inappropriate questions or try to attract attention," he noted.
In response to Karybek uulu's criticism, Aliyev stated that it is important to respect the opinions of experienced specialists and not to succumb to emotions.In conclusion, the committee chairman called for respect and restraint, emphasizing that the discussion was quite active. Ultimately, the committee approved the concept of the bill in the first reading.
It is worth noting that this is not the first instance of a dispute between Mederbek Aliyev and Ulukbek Karybek uulu.
