The court released Gayıp, who had been in custody for over seven months on “terrorism” charges, subject to a travel ban, and has adjourned the case until 7 December

CANAN COŞKUN, ISTANBUL

The first hearing in the case brought against Pınar Gayıp, a reporter for the Etkin News Agency (ETHA), on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” on the grounds that “actions and events capable of causing a stir in society” might be organized at the party’s founding anniversary last year. The first hearing was held at the 23rd Istanbul High Criminal Court on 14 September 2026.

Gayıp and her lawyers were present at the hearing, which was covered by P24. Journalists and Gayıp’s relatives also attended the hearing.

Beginning her defense by thanking the journalists who had shown solidarity with her, Gayıp said, “We are being asked to remain silent; I am on trial because I have not remained silent.”

Gayıp continued her defense as follows: “The address where I have lived for years is well known. During the raid on my home, it was almost as if a state of emergency had been declared in my neighborhood and block of flats. It was alleged that my home was a safe house. Female police officers wanted to watch me whilst I was completely naked. They entered the toilet with me. I am 40 years old; I have never been subjected to such behavior in my life. I was jailed without even seeing the prosecutor. The court hearing lasted just one or two minutes; I was imprisoned almost immediately. For the past seven months, I have been waiting during the monthly reviews of my detention to find out what I am actually accused of.”

Gayıp, who stated that she had been “upon instruction,” explained that the five-and-a-half-page indictment drawn up against her months later was also composed of statements from informants. Gayıp emphasized that in all these statements, she was referred to as a journalist: “I simply wish to respond to the statements made by the informant named Mustafa Bozali. I do not know him. He claims to know me, which is hardly surprising as I am a journalist. Members of the ESP had warned months ago that arrests could take place based on this person’s statements. This individual was expelled from the party on charges of child abuse, collaborated with criminal gangs abroad, returned to Turkey and is currently in custody. I am here today because of the statements made by this child abuser, and that is why I am explaining my work as a journalist.”

Gayıp pointed out that attempts were being made to bring journalists to heel through the statements of so-called “confessing witnesses,” noting that the most obvious example of this was the case against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Stating that there were 10 such statements from “confessing witnesses” in her own case file, Gayıp said, “The other nine ‘confessing witnesses’ also stated that I worked at ETHA. I have been working at ETHA for 10 years and am trying to prove in the trials I am facing that I work for this agency.”

“The charge of ‘attending the funeral of Emine Ocak from the Saturday Mothers’” 

Gayıp stated that ETHA is not impartial but is an organization that stands with workers and laborers, and said that this is why they have been targeted. Recalling that ETHA staff had issued statements calling for her release after she was arrested, Gayıp noted that these statements had also been turned into charges against her and continued as follows:

“One of the charges that really surprised me was attending the funeral of Emine Ocak from the Saturday Mothers. Berfo Ana, also from the Saturday Mothers, had been received by [President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan.

“A promise had been made that the remains of her son, Cemil Kırbayır, who was disappeared in custody, would be found. Despite this, I am being accused of attending the funeral of another ‘Saturday Mother.’ Moreover, I attended this funeral as a journalist. I would have attended even if I had not been obliged to cover the story. I also called on others to attend the funeral.”

Emphasizing that holding a political ideology is a constitutional right, Gayıp stated that this could not be the subject of an accusation. Gayıp noted that her social media accounts were open to everyone, adding that anyone wishing to do so could contact her. Stating that she shared and disseminated her news reports on her social media accounts, Gayıp said, “In my case file, these have been portrayed as if they had been found through some special effort. These are not crimes; they are simply part of the normal course of life.” 

Gayıp denied the charges against her and requested her release and acquittal.

Witnesses were heard

Following Gayıp’s defense, a witness currently in prison gave evidence via the judicial videoconferencing system (SEGBİS). The witness stated that Gayıp worked at ETHA and that they had last seen her taking photographs at the commemoration of the 12 March Gazi Neighborhood massacre. The presiding judge then asked whether the witness was aware of any connection between Gayıp and the organisztion. The witness reiterated that they had only ever seen Gayıp taking photographs.

Subsequently, a witness named Mustafa Tezel gave evidence in the courtroom. Tezel stated that he did not know Gayıp, that he was seeing him for the first time in his life, and that the statement in the case file was not his own.

Following Tezel, a confidential witness using the alias “Berfin” gave evidence via SEGBIS. The confidential witness stated that they had known Gayıp whilst she was active in Istanbul between 2015 and 2017. The witness stated that Gayıp was working at ETHA at that time and that they had seen her at ESP’s events and activities. The witness, who stated that Gayıp was working as a journalist, said they had seen her in 2016 “at an ideological training session for women.” In response to the presiding judge’s questions, the anonymous witness replied, “Detailed information is contained in my statement.”

The prosecutor requested that the detention be continued

The court then asked the prosecutor for their opinion regarding Gayıp’s detention. The prosecutor requested that the court rule in favor of continuing Gayıp’s detention.

Emine Özhasar, one of Gayıp’s lawyers, reiterated that the witnesses had also stated that her client was a journalist. Özhasar noted that there was not a single piece of concrete evidence relating to the charge leveled against her client in the indictment, and provided details on how the investigation had begun. Özhasar noted that dozens of people had been detained on the basis of mere speculation during the investigation phase, and recalled that their requests regarding detention had been rejected. Reminding the court that ETHA had been subject to state tax audits for approximately 10 years, Özhasar stated that more than half of the indictment consisted of charges criminalizing the act of working at ETHA.

Noting that in all the photographs in the case file, Gayıp was seen with a camera around her neck, Özhasar also referred to Court of Cassation rulings noting that statements made under the “effective repentance” provision cannot form the basis of a judgement. 

Regarding the allegation in the case file’s HTS records that Gayıp had been in contact with 327 individuals against whom proceedings had been initiated for organized crime, she said: “If my records were examined, perhaps a thousand people would emerge.This data is meaningless, because the fact that a person has been subject to proceedings for organized crime is not a crime in itself. Nor has any information been provided regarding the outcome of those proceedings.”

After the statements had been concluded, the presiding judge adjourned the proceedings briefly to announce an interim ruling. Upon resuming, the court announced its decision to release Gayıp, subject to an international travel ban. 

The case was adjourned until 7 December 2026.

Background of the case

Pınar Gayıp was taken into custody as part of an operation launched by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office across 22 cities on the morning of 3 February 2026. Gayıp, who was brought to Istanbul Courthouse on 5 February, was referred to court along with 56 others, with a request for their detention. The court issued a detention order for 47 individuals, including Gayıp, on the grounds that “evidence had not yet been gathered” and there was “a suspicion of flight or concealment.”

In the indictment filed by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, it was requested that Pınar Gayıp be punished for the offense of “membership in a terrorist organization.” The prosecution alleged that Gayıp was linked to the MLKP and had engaged in activities within the organization that demonstrated continuity, diversity and intensity. The indictment cited Gayıp’s work at ETHA, activities linked to the organization’s public-sphere structures, her participation in various actions and commemorations, as well as her communication records, money transfers and digital materials as grounds for the charges.

The indictment also included statements made by 10 individuals in previous investigations under the “effective repentance” provision. Whilst some of these individuals described Gayıp as a person working at ETHA and holding a “responsible" position, others claimed that Gayıp was linked to the MLKP and had participated in various activities. One witness stated that Gayıp had attended an online meeting. In the investigation into this meeting, it was reported that the name “Pınar” was visible in one of the Google Meet screenshots found on the witness’s telephone. The prosecution alleged that these activities were discussed during the meeting. However, the indictment did not specify any other record or content regarding whether Gayıp attended the meeting or what she said during it.

The prosecution also assessed Gayıp’s work as a reporter at ETHA, the publication of the organization’s calls and statements on ETHA’s social media accounts, her possession of the agency’s press card, and logins to the ETHA account from her mobile phone as falling within the scope of the allegation of “membership in a terrorist organization.” Gayıp’s participation in various demonstrations, funerals and commemorations was also addressed in the indictment as part of her involvement in activities of the organization.

The indictment further stated that Gayıp had communication records with 327 individuals facing proceedings for terrorist offenses. A telephone investigation revealed that she was a member of a group on the Telegram app and had sent information messages on behalf of ETHA; it was also reported that a photograph was found on her telephone showing her wearing an apron bearing the words “Atılım Gazetesi” alongside a press card issued in ETHA’s name. It was noted that money transfers to various individuals had been identified in MASAK records.

However, the indictment also included a statement in the assessment of the examination of the seized digital materials that “no crime or criminal elements were found.” The prosecution, however, stated that, together with other evidence, it had reached the conclusion that Gayıp was organically linked to the MLKP and was acting within the organization’s hierarchy.

In the concluding section of the indictment, it was requested that Gayıp be punished and that her detention be continued. Furthermore, it was requested that the case be consolidated with another case file involving Gayıp before the same court. The court accepted the indictment and consolidated the case with the aforementioned file.