Belarusian Court Sentences Radio Host to Prison in Latest Press Freedom Case

Last updated: 22 September 2026

Musician and radio host Aleh Khamenka performs on a Minsk street in 2020 amid nationwide protests demanding the resignation of the Belarusian president. A court has sentenced him to three years in jail on "extremism" charges over his work with Belarusian Radio Racyja. (Photo: YouTube/ Zerkalo.io)

On March 5, 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists published a report about the sentencing of Belarusian journalist and radio host Aleh Khamenka, presenting the case as another sign of continued pressure on independent media in the country. According to the article, a court in Minsk convicted Khamenka on March 4 on charges of promoting “extremist” activities and sentenced him to three years in prison, while also imposing a fine of 20,000 Belarusian rubles, or about US$6,800.

The report centers on the claim that the charges were directly linked to Khamenka’s media work. It says the case stemmed from his involvement with Belarusian Radio Racyja, a Poland-based broadcaster that has long served as one of the independent media outlets covering Belarus from abroad. Court files cited in the article reportedly referred specifically to his radio programs for the station, making his journalistic activity a central element in the prosecution.

Khamenka is described not only as a journalist, but also as a musician and composer who had contributed to Radio Racyja since the late 2000s. The article says he hosted several programs for the outlet until his detention, including music shows such as A Dozen Hits and Folk Gate. That detail is important because it places the case in the broader context of Belarusian authorities targeting not only political reporters or investigative outlets, but also media figures working in cultural and radio programming.

The article also outlines the timeline leading up to the sentence. Belarusian authorities detained Khamenka on June 17, 2025, after searching his apartment in Minsk, and news of the detention became public on June 30. On July 9, 2025, the human rights group Viasna reported that he had been held on criminal extremism charges related to alleged cooperation with an unnamed independent Belarusian media outlet that had been labeled “extremist.” In the new report, that earlier detention is presented as part of the same case that ultimately ended in conviction and imprisonment.

A key element in the story is the use of extremism legislation, which has become one of the principal legal tools used against media and civil society in Belarus in recent years. The article notes that the Belarusian criminal code was amended in 2021 to align with a broader package of anti-extremism legislation. Since then, according to figures cited from the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), at least 50 media outlets have been banned under the law to combat extremism. In that framing, Khamenka’s sentence is presented not as an isolated prosecution, but as part of a wider legal and political pattern.

The report gives particular attention to the status of Radio Racyja itself. It recalls that the station’s website was blocked in Belarus in September 2021. Later, on January 16, 2024, the Belarusian security service (KGB) designated the broadcaster as an extremist group. These measures are significant because they help explain how routine journalistic work for the station could later be treated by prosecutors as evidence of criminal activity. In effect, once the outlet had been formally stigmatized under Belarusian law, cooperation with it could be pursued under the country’s expanding extremism framework.

Another notable point in the article is the speed with which Khamenka’s case has been followed by other convictions. The report quotes a CPJ researcher as saying that his three-year sentence marked the third conviction of journalists in Belarus in less than a week. This detail gives the case broader significance by placing it within a very recent sequence of prosecutions. Rather than describing the conviction as an isolated legal action, the article presents it as part of a concentrated wave of court decisions affecting media workers.

That broader context matters because Belarus has remained one of the most restrictive environments for journalists in Europe since the crackdown that followed the 2020 protest movement. The image caption accompanying the article refers to Khamenka performing on a Minsk street in 2020 during mass protests calling for the resignation of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. While the current case is formally tied to extremism-related accusations over his radio work, the inclusion of that image and its description places the story within the longer political backdrop of post-2020 repression, when authorities sharply intensified pressure on opposition figures, independent media, and civil society groups.

The report also shows how the prosecution of journalists in Belarus increasingly relies on administrative and criminal classifications that transform professional reporting into punishable conduct. In Khamenka’s case, the work cited involved radio programming for an external broadcaster already blacklisted inside Belarus. The practical result, as described in the article, is that journalistic participation in such media can be recast as support for extremist activity. This blurring of the line between reporting and criminal conduct has become one of the main features of the press freedom crisis in the country.

The tone of the article is that of a press freedom alert rather than a judicial summary, but it still provides several concrete details that help define the legal and political importance of the case. It identifies the city where the conviction occurred, the date of the sentencing, the length of the prison term, the amount of the fine, the broadcaster involved, and the legislative framework under which the case unfolded. It also notes that the organization contacted the Belarusian Investigative Committee, which handles pretrial proceedings, for comment but did not receive a reply. That absence of an official response leaves the account centered largely on the ruling itself and on information from Belarusian journalism and rights groups operating under heavy constraints.

One of the most consequential data points in the article is the number of journalists still imprisoned in the country. It states that at least 26 journalists are currently behind bars in Belarus. This figure gives the Khamenka case a larger institutional meaning. It suggests that his conviction is one example within a broader system of ongoing detentions, rather than an exceptional case. In practical terms, that reinforces the article’s argument that the authorities have not eased pressure on the press, despite the passage of time since the most visible phases of the 2020–2021 crackdown.

The case also reflects the increasingly transnational character of Belarusian journalism. Because many independent outlets now operate from exile, cooperation with foreign- or exile-based media has become common for Belarusian journalists who can no longer work freely inside the country. But the article indicates that this very arrangement can expose them to prosecution at home, especially when the outlet involved has already been labeled extremist. The Khamenka case therefore illustrates a difficult reality for Belarusian journalists: working from or with media outside the country may provide editorial freedom, but it can also become the legal basis for criminal charges if they remain within reach of Belarusian authorities.

Another important aspect of the story is the symbolic message conveyed by sentencing a radio host with a cultural profile rather than a narrowly political reporter. Khamenka is portrayed as someone whose identity spans journalism, music, and broadcasting. That makes the case notable beyond a single newsroom or publication. It suggests that the risks associated with media work in Belarus are not confined to overtly oppositional reporting, but can also extend to broadcasters and presenters whose work contributes to the broader independent information space. In that sense, the article implies that the boundaries of repression remain wide and flexible.

The conviction may also be read as part of an effort to sustain pressure through the courts rather than only through arrests or censorship. A multi-year prison sentence and substantial fine carry a different weight from temporary detention or website blocking alone. They show how the authorities can use formal legal mechanisms to produce long-term consequences for journalists while maintaining the appearance of judicial procedure. The report does not attempt a detailed legal analysis of the court’s reasoning, but the facts it presents are enough to indicate that the case has moved well beyond surveillance or harassment into full criminal punishment.

At the same time, the article is careful to root the story in named organizations and documented timelines rather than in broad generalizations. It relies on information attributed to BAJ, Viasna, court files, and the broadcaster’s history of designation and blocking. That structure gives the piece the character of a documented rights alert rather than an abstract political statement. The overall picture that emerges is of a media environment in which legal categories such as extremism can be deployed to criminalize reporting relationships, leading to prison sentences for journalists whose work would ordinarily fall within the boundaries of protected expression.

The Khamenka case is likely to attract attention because it combines several elements that have become central to debates over Belarus: the criminalization of independent journalism, the use of extremism laws against media, the shrinking space for reporters working with exile outlets, and the persistence of long prison terms as a tool of control. The fact that the sentence was described as one of three journalist convictions in less than a week gives the story added urgency. It suggests a renewed or continuing wave of pressure rather than a slowdown in the campaign against independent media.

In that respect, the article is about more than one verdict. It documents how the Belarusian state continues to treat information work as a domain of political enforcement, especially when the outlet involved operates outside official control. By focusing on the legal basis of the prosecution and the institutional context around it, the report shows how media repression can be sustained through courtroom decisions, legislative changes, and the official branding of journalistic organizations as extremist. Khamenka’s sentence is presented as a concrete example of that broader system in action.

Conclusion

The report presents Aleh Khamenka’s conviction as another sign that Belarusian authorities continue to use extremism laws and criminal prosecutions against media workers. It highlights how a prison sentence tied to work for an exile-based broadcaster fits into a broader pattern of restrictions, outlet bans, and ongoing journalist imprisonment in the country.

More broadly, the case is drawing attention because it reflects the wider condition of press freedom in Belarus, where legal mechanisms are increasingly used to punish reporting and broadcasting outside state-approved structures. In that context, the sentence is significant not only for one journalist, but also for what it suggests about the continuing risks faced by the country’s independent media community.