Akgül was prosecuted on the basis of her attendance at HDK meetings in 2011 and 2012, as well as her reporting activities carried out in a professional capacity

Journalist Elif Akgül was acquitted of “membership in a terrorist organization” in a case brought against her over her professional journalistic activities, as part of an investigation targeting the Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK). At the third hearing of the trial, held on 20 January 2026, the Istanbul 25th High Criminal Court ruled that the prosecution had failed “to establish that Elif Akgül committed the alleged offense.” Politician Mehmet Saltoğlu, who was tried in the same case, was also acquitted.

Akgül was detained during police operations targeting the HDK carried out in February last year and remained in pretrial detention for more than three months, until her release on 2 June 2025.

In her defense against the prosecution’s request for punishment set out in the opinion on the merits submitted ahead of the second hearing, Akgül argued that her constitutional rights had been violated. In her statement, Akgül said:

“The opinion on the merits includes transcripts that were unlawfully obtained and that violate my right to communication. The prosecution lacks the confidence to present any concrete basis for claiming that the HDK is a terrorist organization, as there are acquittals in cases concerning the HDK. Nor does the prosecution have the confidence to explain how these transcripts were obtained, because they were collected by officers [affiliated with Fethullah Gülen’s religious group].”

The charges brought against Akgül in the indictment, covering the years 2011 to 2012, were based on telephone conversations obtained through wiretaps conducted without a court order. The police officers who carried out these interceptions were later prosecuted in investigations into what became officially known as FETÖ, a terrorist organization linked with the cleric Fethullah Gülen and accused of orchestrating the 2016 coup attempt.

Stressing that the use of these transcripts as evidence was unlawful and that their content related solely to her professional activities, Akgül said: “What we are dealing with is a roughly 20-page chain of unfounded allegations that contains no evidence whatsoever. My expectation is not that you uphold this chain of delusions, but that you protect my constitutional rights.”

Speaking after Akgül, her lawyer Hazal Sümeli argued that there is no judicial ruling designating the Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK) as a terrorist organization. Sümeli said: “The claim in the indictment that the HDK is a continuation of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) is unfounded. Even if such a link were assumed, the DTK is not considered a terrorist organization under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. All activities of the HDK are fully public and lawful. The HDK’s co-spokesperson, Meral Danış Beştaş, is a sitting member of parliament. For these reasons, charging my client with membership in an organization constitutes a clear violation of the law.”

Prosecutor disregarded evidence in favor of the defense

Sümeli stressed that the wiretaps cited as evidence in both the indictment and the opinion on the merits were conducted in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that all seven conversations included in the indictment fall squarely within the scope of freedom of the press and freedom of communication. She further noted that the case file improperly incorporated actions attributed to another individual with a similar name among the open-source materials, and that Akgül was deprived of her liberty for three months solely on the basis of such flawed evidence.

Lawyer Tora Pekin, for his part, stated that the prosecution had relied solely on incriminating evidence. Pekin said: “My client Elif Akgül noted that the prosecutor showed no interest in evidence in her favor. This observation is entirely accurate. First and foremost, there is no ruling by the Court of Cassation establishing that the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) is a terrorist organization; the Court of Cassation’s decisions relate instead to assessments of the actions of [then deputy] Aysel Tuğluk. There is no legal basis for using these decisions in an abstract manner, detached from their context. Nor is there any such determination by the Constitutional Court of Turkey. On the contrary, in a case filed before the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court and later transferred to İzmir, an acquittal was issued; the Regional Appeals Court upheld this acquittal, ruling that there is no judicial decision establishing that the HDK is a terrorist organization.”

Pekin also addressed the allegation in the indictment concerning a meeting Akgül attended before she began working as a journalist. “The prosecution claims to have established that Elif Akgül attended an HDK meeting in 2011; yet Elif Akgül had already declared this herself. What the individuals who attended that meeting have in common is that no HDK-related cases were ever brought against them,” Pekin said This so-called finding merely demonstrates that the prosecution failed to conduct a sufficient and comprehensive investigation.”

Finally, Pekin emphasized that Akgül is a well-known journalist who has worked for years as a courthouse reporter. “The prosecution has presented no findings demonstrating continuity or intensity. The only sphere in which Elif Akgül shows continuity and intensity is her journalistic work as a courthouse reporter at the Istanbul Courthouse. If continuity is to be sought, it is this continuity that should be acknowledged,” Pekin said.

The Istanbul 25th High Criminal Court delivered its acquittal verdict after hearing the defenses.