The first hearing in the merged case against journalist İsmail Arı, who is on trial on charges of “defamation” following two separate complaints over reports on the Yunus Emre Foundation, has been adjourned until 8 December

TANSU PİŞKİN, ISTANBUL

The first hearing in the case against journalist İsmail Arı, who is on trial on charges of “defamation” over reports published in BirGün daily regarding allegations of corruption at the Yunus Emre Foundation, was held at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance on 22 September 2026.

Two separate indictments had been drawn up against Arı following complaints from Rahmi Göktaş, the husband of Mahinur Göktaş, the Minister for Family and Social Services, and Abdullah Kutalmış Yalçın, the son of Semih Yalçın, Deputy Chairman of the MHP. Whilst the prosecution argued that Arı had committed the offense of “defamation” in a continuous manner in relation to the same news reports, the case opened following Yalçın’s complaint and the case opened following Göktaş’s complaint were merged into a single file.

The division of labour between the two judges presiding over the consolidated case at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance is based on odd and even-numbered cases. As the judge responsible for even-numbered cases—who was handling Arı’s case—was on sick leave, the case was heard by a duty judge.

The duty judge adjourned the case until 8 December 2026.

Background of the case

Journalist İsmail Arı is on trial on charges of “defamation” over articles published in BirGün daily regarding allegations of corruption at the Yunus Emre Foundation. Two separate indictments were drawn up against Arı upon complaints lodged by Rahmi Göktaş and Abdullah Kutalmış Yalçın.

The indictment relating to Göktaş’s complaint addresses Arı’s articles titled “Their signatures are on the great heist,” (dated 5 October 2025) “They tried to cover up the heist” (dated 7 October 2025) and “Those who signed off on the heist are being protected” (dated 26 October 2025). The articles contained statements alleging that, despite documents bearing the signatures of Rahmi Göktaş and Abdullah Kutalmış Yalçın being present as part of the corruption investigation into the Yunus Emre Foundation, their statements had not been taken and their names had not been included in the indictment. Furthermore, the article dated 26 October reported that, based on documents bearing the signatures of Göktaş and Yalçın, a payment of approximately TL 2 million had been made from the Yunus Emre Foundation’s coffers for a concert organization in Kazakhstan, and that TL 1 million 817 thousand of this amount had been found to be without valid justification.

The indictment, which was the subject of Abdullah Kutalmış Yalçın’s complaint, also addressed the news article dated 7 October 2025 entitled “Attempted to cover up the theft.” The article stated that Abdurrahman Aliy, Chairman of the Yunus Emre Foundation, had attempted to cover up the theft at the foundation, that inspectors from the General Directorate of Foundations had established that the foundation’s safe had been emptied using bogus invoices from shell companies, and that an indictment had been drawn up against 23 individuals on charges of “abuse of trust in the course of duty” and “laundering of proceeds of crime.” The report also noted that, although the signatures of Rahmi Göktaş and Abdullah Kutalmış Yalçın appeared on the documents and payment orders submitted by the inspectors to the public prosecutor’s office, their statements were not taken and their names were not included in the indictment.

The investigation, launched following a complaint by Yalçın, was referred to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office after the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, as the news website’s headquarters were not located within Ankara’s judicial district.

In the indictment filed following Göktaş’s complaint, the prosecution argued that the news reports had linked him to the incident under investigation for corruption by featuring his name and photograph alongside abstract and unsubstantiated comments, without providing objective explanations, and that an attempt had been made to create the impression in the public eye that he had participated in this incident and engaged in similar acts. The prosecution argued that there was sufficient suspicion that the offense of “defamation” had been committed, noting that abstract allegations and accusations of unlawful acts had been made with the aim of initiating an investigation or prosecution against Göktaş or of imposing administrative sanctions.

In the indictment filed following Yalçın’s complaint, the prosecution also alleged that the news report, by linking Yalçın to the incident under investigation for corruption, sought to create the impression that he had participated in that incident and engaged in similar acts; furthermore, it claimed that the report sought to create the impression that Yalçın had engaged in unlawful acts and transactions and had obtained undue benefits for himself or others. The prosecution stated that abstract allegations and accusations of unlawful acts had been made with the aim of initiating an investigation or prosecution against Yalçın, or of securing the imposition of administrative sanctions, and indicated that there was sufficient suspicion regarding the offense of “defamation.”

The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that Arı be assessed as having committed the offense of “defamation” in a continuous manner against both Göktaş and Yalçın over the same news reports, and that the cases be merged.

The Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the cases to be merged. The decision was handed down on 12 February 2026