Gül was on trial for reporting on allegations of transfer of arms and ammunition to jihadist groups in Syria with National Intelligence Organization (MİT) trucks that were stopped by the gendarmerie in 2014

CANSU PİŞKİN, İSTANBUL

The third hearing in the retrial of Cumhuriyet newspaper’s former Ankara representative Erdem Gül on the charge of “knowingly and willingly aiding an armed terrorist organization without being a part of its hierarchical structure” over the publication of images of National Intelligence Organization’s (MİT) trucks was held at the İstanbul 14th High Criminal Court on 28 February 2024.

Erdem Gül and his lawyers were present at the hearing, which P24 monitored.

The prosecutor repeated their final opinion on the case they presented at the hearing on 30 November 2023, and requested sentencing for Gül on grounds that “information, documents and images, which were obtained by FETÖ/PDY members and that should have remained secret under national security and state secrets for purposes of the state’s security and its internal and external political interests, were published and exposed despite a ban on publications and broadcasts.”

Gül’s lawyers requested suspension of trial on grounds of unconstitutionality

Delivering his defense statement against the prosecutor’s opinion, Gül said, “I reject the charges because journalism is not a crime.”

Gül’s lawyer Fikret İlkiz, who delivered a counterstatement against the prosecutor’s opinion, said that article 220/7 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which governs the crime of “aiding a terrorist organization” is unconstitutional and that it was not possible to convict a defendant based on this article. “You do not believe in the freedom of the press. You do not recognize the rulings of the Constitutional Court. You think that only your own views are correct,” İlkiz said.

Akın Atalay, another lawyer for Gül, requested the court to consider the claim that article 220/7 of the TCK is unconstitutional and to issue an interim order regarding this point before proceeding. The prosecutor demanded the defense’s request be rejected. The court rejected the request regarding unconstitutionality and ruled for the continuation of the trial.

Atalay completed his defense statement saying, “Given that the alleged crime was committed through the press and the case was filed after the four-month statute of limitations defined in the Law on the Press had expired, the case should be dismissed.”

Lawyer Tora Pekin, who delivered a counterstatement against the prosecutor’s opinion said, “In the indictment, the prosecutor has stated ‘this case does not concern the freedom of the press.’ And yet there are three Constitutional Court rulings concerning this case that were taken in the context of the freedom of expression and the press.” Pekin requested Gül’s acquittal.

The court issued its verdict following the defense statements and sentenced Gül to 5 years of imprisonment. The decision read as follows: “It has been decided to sentence the defendant for the crime of ‘knowingly and willingly aiding an armed terrorist organization’ given the significance and value of the subject of the crime; the level of societal perception created in favor of the terrorist organization through the defendant’s position as the Ankara representative of a national newspaper at the time the crime was committed; the use made by the organization of the news item subject to the crime to bring up these claims on the international arena simultaneously with its publication; the establishment of firm intent to depict the government as ‘a country that supports terrorism’ both internally and at the international level through the use of these news items; the benefits thus provided to the organization and the severity of the resulting harm and risk.”

Click here for details for the background of the case.