On the first days following the announcement, the first deputy prime minister seemed slow to respond to such loud and rigorous accusations, adding to the impression that he had been seeking to coordinate with the president and the pro-Bakiev parliamentarians. On the fifth day, he bluntly rejected the statement in front of the parliament, refering to it as an attempt to discredit the government, emphasizing Kulov’s failure to bring the case up while being in power, and subsequently vowing to sue Kulov for libel.

Usenov showed his determination to keep working in his position unless a court proves his guilt, despite the worries of some opposition parliamentarians and public activists over the image of government as well as a possible violation of the criminal code. “Why are you asking me? Kulov said this and you should ask him,” Daniyar Usenov argued in parliament in apparent bewilderment, stressing the presumption of innocence and reducing the statement to calumny.

Felix Kulov also alleged that Daniyar Usenov paid $500,000 from his own pocket to Edward Lieberman, an international advocate who was involved in the criminal cases against six associates of former president Askar Akaev following the March 2005 upheaval. Usenov refused to disclose the source of the money, and rejected the supposition of Parliamentarian Temir Sariev that it was Ineksim bank, in which Daniyar Usenov is believed to have a stake. “If you owe somebody, you start providing service. Therefore, you must reveal the source,” insisted the parliamentarian. But the first deputy prime minister avoided further questions. The allegations also spilled over to Usenov’s wife, who, according to Melis Eshimkanov, among other violations acquired the license for the ITEK AIR Company through illegal means. The shenanigans in the parliament were not included in pro-government media outlets.

Pro-Bakiev parliamentarians, such as Ishak Masaliev and Kamchibek Tashiev, who adamantly advocated the passage of the constitution in December that strengthened the power of the president, are calling on the parliament not to meddle in the issue and refrain from taking the matter to courts. They see the affair as Kulov’s “PR step” and a “petty quarrel,” from which the parliament should stay afar, to be concerned instead with its main task – legislation and “vital issues.” They consider it as a matter of “dignity” not to turn to courts.

The opposition parliamentarians, in turn, are at pains to prove the opposite. Omurbek Tekebaev, leader of the Atameken party, suggested using a lie detector on parliamentarians and on the accused first deputy prime minister. Azim Beknazarov, the co-founder of the Asaba party, proposed to find a solution through a closed-door meeting in which every parliamentarian should determine their positions considering the country’s “grave condition”. This seem to be what the opposition parliamentarians could accomplish, given the pro-Bakiev majority in parliament and to that the fact that parliament in any case has little influence on the composition of the government until 2010.

Nevertheless, Kulov was not left untouched by his own statement. Critics contend that Kulov should not have brought this kind of “private” and “ungrounded” issues to the public, underlining Kulov’s political weight as one of the national leaders. Burgeoning corruption in the parliament and government is often mentioned in the newspapers, but they never received due attention given the absence of concrete evidence.

Kulov’s statement has apparently begun to take effect. Parliamentarian Dooronbek Sadyrbaev, the oldest member of parliament, criticized both sides and called on the Prosecutor General to investigate the case by bringing action against Daniyar Usenov, Felix Kulov, or the parliament and warned that if it fails to do so, it will be the first to be challenged. If corruption actually took place, the parliament has to be dissolved since it will no longer have a “moral ground” to work, he argued.

In general, this case, according to Parliamentarian Kubatbek Baybolov, an opposition member and former KGB officer, signifies the first precedent when a dismissed state official officially discloses corruption cases in the government. Though remaining mere rhetoric, which inflamed much flurry in the public, the statement appears a solid ground for the opposition to condemn the president and the largely pro-Bakiev parliament.