Late on Tuesday, February 10, President Sadyr Japarov removed Kamchybek Tashiev from his posts as chairman of the State Committee for National Security (GKNB) and deputy chairman of the cabinet, ending a partnership that has shaped Kyrgyz politics since the upheaval of 2020.
The decision was followed by a rapid reconfiguration of the security apparatus. Japarov appointed Jumgalbek Shabdanbekov as acting chairman of the GKNB, with the candidacy submitted to parliament for approval. Several senior figures within the committee were also dismissed, including first deputy chairman Kurvanbek Avazov and deputy chairmen Elizar Smanov and Daniel Rysaliev, according to state-linked reporting.
Japarov’s office presented the reshuffle as a measure aimed at preventing division within society and between state agencies, and at strengthening unity. Tashiev did not immediately comment publicly. Reuters and local reporting said he was in Germany for medical treatment when the decrees were signed.
The removal matters because Tashiev was not only the country’s most prominent security official but also one of the president’s closest political allies. Both men rose to national power amid the political crisis of 2020, when protests over disputed parliamentary elections led to the collapse of the previous government and set the stage for Japarov’s ascent. Over the subsequent years, Tashiev became a highly visible public defender of the administration, frequently appearing on state television and cultivating a strong base of influence in the south of the country.
The reshuffle has also taken an institutional form. On February 10, Kyrgyzstan established a State Security Service under the President. The new body reports directly to the head of state and is integrated into the national security system; it is tasked with protective measures for designated individuals and facilities. The service’s chairman is appointed and dismissed by the president, with deputies appointed and dismissed by the president on the chairman’s recommendation.
In parallel, Kyrgyzstan’s Border Service has been removed from the structure of the GKNB and transformed into a separate State Border Service, according to reporting on the decrees and amendments to the cabinet structure. If implemented in full, this would reduce the GKNB’s institutional reach compared with the post-2020 period, when border management was brought under the national security committee’s remit.
These changes place more of the state’s protective functions under direct presidential authority, while narrowing the span of responsibilities concentrated in the security committee. In practical terms, the shift alters the balance between the presidency and the security establishment by separating key capabilities that had previously sat within, or alongside, the GKNB leadership.
The political context is shaped by Kyrgyzstan’s record of abrupt transitions and elite turnover. Modern Kyrgyz politics has repeatedly been marked by sudden changes at the top, contested successions and periods of instability driven by street mobilisation and intra-elite conflict. The present development differs in that it comes from within the executive itself, and is being accompanied by structural revisions rather than a single dismissal.
The dismissal also occurs against an external backdrop in which Kyrgyzstan faces scrutiny from Western governments over allegations that it has facilitated Russian sanctions evasion linked to the war in Ukraine, an issue that places attention on border governance and enforcement capacity. While no official link has been drawn between that pressure and the current internal reshuffle, the timing means foreign partners will watch closely for any effect on oversight, customs enforcement and security coordination.
For Japarov, the immediate question is whether the removal of a powerful ally strengthens his grip on the state or creates new uncertainties inside the governing elite. Reuters reported that supporters have credited the current leadership with reducing political turbulence by consolidating power and building alliances across regional and political lines, while critics have argued that this consolidation has been accompanied by tighter controls on dissent and the media.
The broader consequence is that Kyrgyzstan is entering a period in which the distribution of coercive and protective authority is being rewritten, with the presidency moving to concentrate direct control over key security functions after ending a defining political partnership at the top of the state.
