A prominent Belarusian media figure, Roman Protasevic, who helped found NEXTA and once led its editorial efforts, faces an intensified set of accusations from the prosecutor for allegedly re-running information linked to an extremist organization. The development adds to the long-running legal saga surrounding opposition media and political activism in Belarus, with state authorities framing the case within a broader effort to curtail activities deemed dangerous to public order.
During a Minsk hearing, the state prosecutor outlined the charges against Protasevic and two other individuals connected to the NEXTA operation. The indictment names Stepan Putilo, a fellow founder of NEXTA, and Yan Rudik, another former editor-in-chief of the channel, as co-defendants in a case described as a conspiracy to seize power. The court process highlighted the central claim: Protasevic, who was at the helm of NEXTA from May to September 2020, allegedly published and endorsed content designed to provoke criminal activity among individuals connected to extremist activities. The proceedings drew attention to the role played by the channel in disseminating information that authorities contend had the potential to escalate unrest.
According to the investigators, Protasevic relocated from Warsaw to Vilnius in October 2020 and subsequently directed and hosted another Belarusian media operation, Belarusian Brain, a channel that Belarusian authorities characterize as an extremist formation within the republic. The prosecutor emphasized that the information agenda pursued by Protasevic in this later project aligned with the one pursued at NEXTA, indicating a continued pattern of influence and messaging that the state regards as a threat to public order and state security.
Throughout the hearing, prosecutors argued that an enhanced charge was warranted given the scope and persistence of the actions attributed to Protasevic and his associates. The move to a more serious accusation reflects prosecutors’ intent to challenge the defendants with the most severe charges supported by the evidence they presented. The case underscores ongoing tensions between authorities and opposition-adjacent media actors who operate from outside the country’s borders and within its legal framework, a dynamic that has repeatedly attracted international attention.
Earlier statements attributed to Protasevic asserted his admission of guilt and a willingness to accept the consequences of the trial. He reportedly acknowledged responsibility in a manner framed as moral and psychological readiness for whatever outcome may result from the proceedings. The description of his stance signals a personal narrative often cited in coverage of legal actions involving media figures who have played a prominent role in documenting political dissent and organizing information networks amid a restrictive media environment.