P24 prepared a third-party legal opinion on the case against Ahmet Kanbal, who was on trial for allegedly “spreading misleading information” over a social media post

ARDIL BATMAZ, MARDİN

Journalist Ahmet Kanbal appeared before the Mardin 1st Criminal Court of First Instance on 13 December 2023 for the second hearing of his trial on the charge of “publicly disseminating misleading information.” The accusation against Kanbal stemmed from a social media post he had shared about a ballot box in Turkey's southeastern province of Mardin that went unaccounted for during the night of the 14 May elections.

P24 monitored the hearing, where Kanbal and his lawyer Erdal Kuzu were in attendance. P24 also prepared a third-party legal opinion about the case against Kanbal upon his lawyer's request. For further information on the expert opinion penned by lawyer Benan Molu, see this report.

The hearing began with identification and the reading out of documents newly submitted to the case file, after which the court heard the testimony of the president of the ballot committee for ballot box no. 1363 in Mardin in the 14 May 2023 elections.

President of the ballot committee: “I never left the ballot box”

The president of the ballot committee stated that he never left the ballot box and only left the building after completing documentation following the counting of the votes. The witness said that he gave his national ID number to the police officers on duty and said, “I did not speak to any political party representatives during all this.” Upon Kanbal’s lawyer Erdal Kuzu asking him whether he had taken the ballot bag away by himself, the witness said that they brought the bag to the courthouse accompanied by police officers and other presidents of ballot committees without being accompanied by other committee members or political party representatives.

Following the testimony of the president of the ballot committee, the court heard DEM Party (former Party of Greens and Left Future) ballot representative Mustafa Üstündağ Benli, who had filed an official report on the day. Benli said that the ballot officials had not given them the signed ballot results and then he had learned that the president of the committee had left the building with the ballots, and continued: “We looked around the school polling station for him but did not find him. Then we alerted the party and law enforcement. We filed an official report along with the people at the police station. Some hours later the president of the ballot committee contacted me and said, ‘I am in the line to deliver the ballot bag at the courthouse, if you come here I will tell you the results.’”

Kanbal: “If this article is not annulled, there will be nothing left to call journalism”

Addressing the court after the witnesses testimonies, Kanbal said that the testimonies had revealed that he was not guilty.

Kanbal stated that the provision on "disinformation" was intended to prevent journalism and added: “While it was still being debated, we said that this article would serve the interests of the government. It is an article for the implementation of censorship and self-censorship. If this article is not annulled, there will be nothing left to call journalism.”

“What happened to the ballot box only emerged thanks to Kanbal's reporting”

Speaking after Kanbal, his lawyer Erdal Kuzu said: “My client has reported on true information for the purposes of contributing to the public peace. What happened to the ballot box only emerged thanks to his reporting.”

Submitting their final opinion on the case, the prosecutor requested Kanbal’s acquittal on the grounds that he had shared the social media post subject to the charge based on tangible information and documents.

Legal opinion by P24 presented to court

While delivering their statement in response to the prosecutor’s final opinion, lawyer Erdal Kuzu submitted the third-party legal opinion drafted by P24 to the court. Kuzu said: “Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code is an article of self-censorship. Journalism is an activity that contributes to establishing public peace. The only reason my client is a defendant in this case is that he is a dissident journalist. In summary, the article contains a legal handicap. Trials of journalists such as my client, who practice free journalism, is a shame for this country.”

Asked for his final say, Kanbal said, “Journalism is not a crime.”

Rendering its judgment following a brief recess, the court ruled to acquit Kanbal on the grounds that the legal elements of the impugned crime did not exist.