Müftüoğlu, who had been imprisoned pending trial on “terrorism” charges for approximately 10 months, was released with a ban on travelling abroad. The trial was adjourned until 13 June 2024

ÖZKAN KÜÇÜK, DİYARBAKIR

The third hearing in the trial of journalist and Dicle Fırat Journalists’ Association Co-Chair Dicle Müftüoğlu on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” and “establishing and administrating a terrorist organization” was held at the Diyarbakır 5th High Criminal Court on 29 February 2024. Müftüoğlu had been held in pre-trial detention at the Sincan Closed Women’s Prison for approximately 10 months.

Dicle Müftüoğlu attended the hearing via the judicial videoconferencing system from the Sincan Closed Women’s Prison, while her lawyers were present for the hearing in the courtroom. Many observers, including members of Lawyers for Lawyers, were present at the hearing, which P24 monitored. There were conspicuously many police officers posted to the courthouse hallways and the courtroom.

Secret witness heard

The hearing began with the testimony of the secret witness, who could not testify at the previous hearing due to connection issues. The secret witness said that Müftüoğlu had worked for the Mezopotamya news agency (MA), that she oversaw female employees there and attended meetings with women’s organizations.

Upon this statement, the presiding judge asked the witness, “Does she undertake these activities as part of journalism or for an illegal organization?” The secret witness replied, “She does them for the organization.”

There was laughter in the courtroom when the secret witness claimed that Müftüoğlu requested reports and articles from women. The presiding judge asked the secret witness “Are her instructions based on commands from the organization, or because they work at the same place.” The secret witness said, “They are for business at the workplace. But I do not know where she gets the instructions from.”

Upon the presiding judge asking, “Have you ever witnessed anything or know about Müftüoğlu’s membership in a terrorist organization,” the secret witness replied, “No. I deduce she acts on behalf of the organization based on these activities.”

Lawyer Resul Temur questioned the secret witness regarding their statement about his client and asked them, “Which women’s organization’s meeting did she attend, where and on which date.” The secret witness said, “I do not remember the place and the date.” The secret witness also said that they could not remember the names of the women’s organizations they had referred to.

“The secret witness has not heard of journalism”

Speaking against the secret witness’ statements, Müftüoğlu said, “I have been a journalist for 15 years. I have worked for other organizations before the MA. I prepared news items with my name on them. I am one of the founders and administrators of the Dicle Fırat Journalists’ Association. I think the witness has not heard of journalism. Newsrooms have a certain hierarchy. Every morning, there is a meeting to decide on the news flow, reporters pitch their proposals and editors also make proposals. These are not instructions.”

Müftüoğlu continued, “Every media outlet has an editorial line and they establish their agenda accordingly. Where eight women are killed in a single day, of course you will contact women’s organizations and receive information. I am certainly not a within the structure of women’s organizations, I have contacted them as a journalist. The MA is based in İstanbul, not in Diyarbakır. The witness has not made a single true statement, just made some claims and false allegations. They are simply criminalizing my professional activities.”

“The secret witness is not providing data or testimony, just making assessments”

Delivering his defense statement, Müftüoğlu’s lawyer Resul Temur said, “The secret witness is acting on grounds of their own assessments and their motivation for punishing my client. We have seen in other cases that this secret witness does this against journalists collectively. They provide no data, information or testimony and leave us to work with nothing. They are just making assessments, which should not be taken to consideration or used as the basis of the verdict.”

Lawyer Temur added that witness, Kerem Gökalp, who was heard at the previous hearing, had also provided no tangible testimony and said, “Kerem Gökalp has made the same accusations, word for word, against several other journalists. This is not normal and his statements should not be taken into consideration.”

Lawyer Temur reminded the court that Müftüoğlu had been tried on the same charges at the Diyarbakır 5th High Criminal Court before and presented the expert’s opinion drafted by Dr. Timuçin Köprülü of Atılım University to the court. Lawyer Temur said “According to the expert’s opinion, my client is being repeatedly tried on the same charge. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the case should be dismissed.”

Lawyer Temur completed his defense statement saying, “People who were arrested on the basis of the testimony of the same witnesses were either acquitted or released. Journalist Sedat Yılmaz was also acquitted today. Only my client remains in remand. We request her release.”

Müftüoğlu’s lawyer Veysel Ok said that the journalism profession was being criminalized through these court cases. Ok added that the witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and not credible and requested the release and acquittal of his client.

In her defense statement, lawyer Şule Recepoğlu said, “Thousands of journalists have been put on trial since 2016 and the conclusion from all these cases is that the accusations are weak, and the data collected do not constitute evidence. At this hearing today, we have also encountered a witness’ testimony that was not checked and is not credible. Even if there 10 other witnesses in this case, this hearing should result in acquittal” and requested the acquittal of her client.

Prosecutor requests that Müftüoğlu be kept in pre-trial detention

The prosecutor requested the court to keep Müftüoğlu in pre-trial detention on grounds of “witnesses’ testimonies, phone records, strong suspicion of crime and risk of flight in the event of a verdict against the defendant.”

Speaking on the prosecutor’s opinion, Müftüoğlu said, “As a journalist I have been imprisoned pending trial for 10 months. This amounts to preventing me from practicing my profession. We have provided tangible evidence to refute the witnesses’ statements against me. I find it humiliating to be held in remand over these untrue claims. I request my release and acquittal to compensate for the unlawfulness and the victimization I have suffered.”

The panel of judges took a short recess without clearing the room and ruled to release Dicle Müftüoğlu with a ban on her travelling abroad. The trial was adjourned until 13 June 2024.

Journalist Dicle Müftüoğlu was released from the Sincan Closed Women’s Prison in the evening.

Background of the case

DFG Co-Chair Dicle Müftüoğlu and MA editor Sedat Yılmaz were detained in Ankara-based operations carried out simultaneously in 15 cities on 29 April 2023.

The Ankara Criminal Court of Peace on duty had ordered the detainees Müftüoğlu and Yılmaz to be put in pre-trial detention on 3 May, World Press Freedom Day.

Following the order, Müftüoğlu was placed in the Sincan Closed Women’s Prison in Ankara.