Facts of the case
A new Constitution was adopted by republican referendum on March 15, 2026, and entered into force on July 1, 2026, replacing the Constitution of August 30, 1995.
Four articles of the new Constitution limit the same person to one term in office. Paragraph 1 of Article 43 provides that the same person may not be elected President of the Republic of Kazakhstan in accordance with the Constitution more than once. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 72 provide the same as to the Chairman and judges of the Constitutional Court, paragraph 1 of Article 83 as to the Chairman of the Supreme Court, and paragraph 3 of Article 84 as to the Prosecutor General.
The persons occupying these offices were elected or appointed under the Constitution of August 30, 1995. The President petitioned the Constitutional Court to provide, in abstracto, an interpretation of these provisions.
Question
Do the limits in paragraph 1 of Article 43, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 72, paragraph 1 of Article 83, and paragraph 3 of Article 84 bar persons who occupy those offices under the Constitution of August 30, 1995, from being elected or appointed to them under the Constitution of March 15, 2026?
Holding
No. The court held that the words “in accordance with the Constitution” in each provision refer to the Constitution in force, so that election or appointment to these offices is governed by that Constitution and by legislation not contrary to it. It found that the limits attach only to a prior election or appointment made in the manner provided by that Constitution and the normative legal acts adopted on its basis.
The court found that the Constitution contains no provision requiring that terms in office, or elections or appointments, occurring during the operation of the Constitution of 1995 be taken into account in applying these limits. It held that restrictions on the constitutional right of citizens to occupy these offices are subject to concrete and unambiguous fixing and may not be derived by expansive interpretation, and that the absence of a direct prescription in the Constitution therefore precludes extending the limits to persons occupying these offices.
The court accordingly held that the occupation of one of these offices under the Constitution of 1995 does not in itself constitute a constitutional-legal obstacle to a person’s election or appointment to that office after the Constitution of March 15, 2026, took effect. Only the first election or appointment occurring after that date is significant for purposes of the limits, and such an election or appointment is deemed to be the first made in accordance with the Constitution.
Foreign Authorities Cited
- None mentioned.
Metadata
- Judges: Azimova (Chief); Nurmukhanov; Zhakipbaev (Rapporteur); Zhatkanbayeva; Kydyrbaeva; Musin (Rapporteur); Podoprigora; Udartsev (Rapporteur)
- Date: July 7, 2026
- Link: Tokayev
DISCLAIMER:
- The website’s summary of the Court’s holding is made for educational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. The summary represents author’s interpretation of the decision, and may be incomplete or inaccurate. For the text of the decision, see the hyperlink above.