The court has ruled that the outcome of another investigation concerning the same broadcast should be ascertained, and has adjourned the case until 22 December

CANAN COŞKUN, ISTANBUL

The second hearing in the case against journalists Timur Soykan and Barış Pehlivan on charges of “spreading false information” was held at at the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance.

Barış Pehlivan did not attend the hearing, which was monitored by P24, whilst Timur Soykan and his lawyer, Gamze Pamuk, were present in the courtroom.

In his defense, Soykan noted that he had been a journalist for 27 years, stating: “As part of my profession, I have reported on numerous cases of corruption. In the reports I have produced in this context, I had no criminal intent; rather, I am working to ensure that society and the bureaucracy remain clean.”

Soykan, who said it was his responsibility to convey to the public the views he had formed regarding the events covered in his reports, continued as follows:

“I believe that the problems our country is facing stem from the presidential system, and it is my right to think this. Even offensive statements fall within the scope of freedom of expression. In my reports, I have repeatedly exposed judges and prosecutors who have taken bribes. As an example, the Chief Public Prosecutor of Istanbul, İsmail Uçar, reported to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) that release orders had been issued in exchange for bribes within his own court. That news report was taken down within five hours. Whilst I was striving to have an investigation opened, my reports were blocked. Even news reports about the access block itself were blocked. My report was accurate, yet I was still prosecuted.”

Soykan, who reported that judge Sidar Demiroğlu – whom İsmail Uçar had reported to the HSK and who was subsequently struck off the register – later wished to speak with him, said: “I met with him. I asked him about the access block he had imposed on my report concerning the illegal betting baron Veysel Şahin; he just laughed. According to his account, other judges were also issuing release orders in exchange for bribes.”

Soykan, who stated that he did not accept the charges, said, “I am a journalist and writing about these matters is my job.”

His lawyer, Gamze Pamuk, then took the floor. Pamuk, stating that she concurred with Soykan’s defense, said the following:

“The issue to be debated here is not whether the words in question were harsh, but whether the elements of the offense have been established. I could not see this in the indictment; they have merely highlighted certain words in bold. If my client provided false information, the truth of the matter should have been established. My client’s remarks consist solely of political analysis. It is the very act of prosecuting him on the basis of these remarks that undermines the judiciary. My client’s comments regarding irregularities within the judiciary are based on his professional experience. If these remarks constitute a criminal offense, then a case should also have been brought against İsmail Uçar.”

Stating that the elements of the offense had not been established, Pamuk requested that Soykan be acquitted.

The prosecutor requested that the outcome of the investigation, which had been launched against the journalists on charges of “insulting the president” and “denigrating state institutions and bodies,” citing the same program as grounds, be awaited.

The court also decided, in line with the prosecutor’s request, to enquire into the outcome of this investigation. 

The trial was adjourned until 22 December 2026.

Background of the case

In the indictment filed by the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, Soykan and Pehlivan were charged with “spreading false information” over their statements made on the “Kayda Geçsin” program broadcast on Halk TV on 15 October 2024.

In the indictment, Pehlivan’s statement – “Crime lord level figures released on bribes, those on trial without detention, those whose investigations have not led to an indictment, and leaders of criminal organizations who are swiftly acquitted – this is an issue within the judiciary; I believe Turkey’s judicial system is in a worse state than its law enforcement system” – was described as “derogatory.”

The indictment cited Soykan’s statements, “In this country, we are confronted with members of the judiciary implicated in crime almost every day” and “How are these things happening at a time when prosecutors are being threatened and the state is corrupt?” as grounds for the charges.

The indictment did not specify which remarks by either Pehlivan or Soykan formed the basis for the charge of “spreading false information.”

The prosecution also conducted an investigation against Soykan on charges of “insulting the president” and “denigrating state institutions and bodies,” and against Pehlivan on charges of “denigrating state institutions and bodies” over the remarks made in the program in question. A decision was, however, taken not to prosecute Murat Ağırel, another commentator on the program.