At the final hearing, Hacıoğlu's lawyers requested an acquittal, arguing that there was no concrete criminal act in the case file. The court sentenced Hacıoğlu to 4 years and 2 months in prison not for the crime of “membership in a terrorist organization,” but for the crime of “aiding a terrorist organization”

FURKAN TUNÇDEMİR, VAN 

The final hearing in the case against journalist Reyhan Hacıoğlu on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” was held at the Van 2nd High Criminal Court on 14 May 2026. P24 monitored the hearing.

At the hearing, Hacıoğlu’s lawyers, Resul Temur and Nazmi Ayaz, presented their defense against the prosecution’s final opinion. The lawyers argued that the charges against Hacıoğlu were based on her journalistic activities, program content, interviews with news sources, and the platform through which the content was published, and they requested an acquittal.

Temur: It is not Hacıoğlu’s actions that are on trial, but the media platform

Hacıoğlu’s lawyer Resul Temur stated in his defense that they did not accept the prosecution’s closing argument. Temur noted that Hacıoğlu has been a journalist from the outset and that the activities in question should be evaluated within the scope of press freedom.

Temur argued that the core issue of the trial was not the programs Hacıoğlu produced, but rather the platform on which they were broadcast. Noting that Hacıoğlu was not an employee of Medya Haber TV, Temur explained that his client worked for Güncel Prodüksiyon, which produced packaged programs and sold them to various television channels.

Noting that the programs were shared not only on Medya Haber TV but also on YouTube and social media accounts, Temur said that it is a common practice in the media sector for production companies to produce content for different platforms.

Temur stated that while the indictment refers to certain broadcasts and statements on Medya Haber TV, this content cannot be attributed to Hacıoğlu. Temur argued that holding Hacıoğlu responsible due to the channel’s general editorial line, other programs, or statements by other individuals would violate the principle of the personal nature of crimes.

The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding Cemil Uğur

Lawyer Temur also addressed the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding journalist Cemil Uğur in his defense. Noting that the Constitutional Court had ruled in favor of Uğur, who was on trial for reporting on the incident in Van where two citizens were thrown from a helicopter, Temur stated that the decision emphasized that content published in the media outlet where the journalist works cannot be attributed solely to the journalist.

Temur noted that the Constitutional Court’s decision emphasized that there was no evidence that Cemil Uğur had carried out journalistic activities on behalf of an organization or had received instructions to that effect. Recalling that Uğur was later acquitted by the Van 5th High Criminal Court, Temur noted that there were legal and factual similarities between the Hacıoğlu case and the Cemil Uğur case.

Temur stated that the language Hacıoğlu used in her programs, the topics she chose, and the guests she invited should be evaluated within the scope of editorial discretion.

“A press card is not a license for journalism”

During the defense, the question of whether Hacıoğlu possessed a press card was raised both during questioning and at the first hearing. Temur stated that a press card is not a mandatory document for conducting journalistic activities.

Temur noted that a press card merely serves to facilitate accreditation, adding that for individuals practicing journalism in Turkey, this card is not a prerequisite for the practice of the profession. Temur recalled that the Communications Directorate had previously submitted an opinion to the court stating that a press card is not mandatory for the conduct of journalistic activities.

Temur argued that journalistic activities should be evaluated based on the nature of the work performed rather than through a press card, and presented the decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation to the court on this matter.

Books cannot be used as evidence

Temur stated that some books found in Hacıoğlu’s home were included as evidence in the case file. Noting that Hacıoğlu had previously declared these books were not her, Temur stated that the books in question were legally published works.

Temur said that the subsequent prohibition of the sale or distribution of a book does not entail criminal liability for the person who possesses it at home. Temur noted that while such decisions could have consequences for those who sell or distribute books in violation of a ban, possessing books at home cannot be used as evidence for a charge.

Temur also stated that the Constitutional Court had ruled in individual applications regarding certain books that freedom of expression and press freedom had been violated.

“Money transfers and phone calls were interpreted against her”

Temur stated that two money transfers made to a person named Hasan Akbaba in the case file were also evaluated against Hacıoğlu. Temur noted that Hacıoğlu stated she knew Akbaba through journalistic activities and that they were friends, and emphasized that no organizational link was established through the money transfers.

Temur stated that Hasan Akbaba is the publisher of the Democratic Modernity magazine, which is legally published in Turkey and appears quarterly. Noting that Akbaba’s IBAN information is listed in the magazine’s masthead, Temur noted that a clearly made money transfer cannot be evaluated as evidence of organizational activity.

Temur noted that Hacıoğlu’s phone conversations were also included in the case file, stating that the conversations contained no content indicating an illegal act or activity. Temur stated that the phone conversations were later interpreted and turned into evidence of a crime.

“Isolation is a current and public human rights issue”

Temur said that Hacıoğlu’s coverage of the topic of “isolation” in his programs was also made the subject of the charges. Explaining that the concept of isolation refers to a person being denied contact with others for an extended period, Temur noted that this topic has been a subject of public debate for a long time.

Pointing out that Court of Cassation precedents require news to be current, factual, and proportionate, Temur stated that the topic of isolation addressed in Hacıoğlu’s programs possessed news value. Noting that Abdullah Öcalan had not been allowed to meet with his lawyers for many years, Temur recalled that in October 2024, MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli had also touched upon the issue of isolation.

Temur stated that Hacıoğlu’s coverage of this issue falls within the scope of journalistic activity and requested that the provisions of the Constitution regarding freedom of expression and the press be taken into account. Temur said that the trial should not result in censorship from a press perspective and demanded an acquittal for Hacıoğlu.

Ayaz: By what act did the client become a member of the organization?

Lawyer Nazmi Ayaz also stated in his defense that he concurred with Resul Temur’s statements. Ayaz said that the prosecution’s final opinion failed to address the fundamental question of the case.

Ayaz noted that the question, “By what fundamental criminal act did the client become a member of the organization?” remained unanswered in the case file. He stated that this question had not been clarified either in the opinion, the expert report, the witness statements, or within the scope of the case file.

Ayaz stated that it had not been concretely established through which act, when, and how Hacıoğlu became a member of the organization, and noted that a criminal trial could only be conducted based on the existence of a clear criminal act.

Ayaz stated that there was no act constituting a crime that could be attributed to Hacıoğlu in the case file, saying, “Where there is no concrete act, one cannot speak of a crime; where there is no crime, one cannot speak of punishment.”

“Criminal law is not built on suspicions”

Ayaz said that the programs Hacıoğlu produced addressed topics under public debate. Ayaz noted that the programs contained no incitement to violence, encouragement of crime, or direction toward any organization, and stated that the charges were based more on the platform where these statements were published than on Hacıoğlu’s words themselves.

Ayaz stated that discomfort arising from the broadcasts or the language used does not give rise to criminal liability, saying, “Criminal law is not built on discomfort. Being uncomfortable is not a crime under the Turkish Penal Code.”

Ayaz recalled that journalist Velat Ekin, the owner of Güncel Medya Prodüksiyon, who was heard as a witness in the same investigation, had been acquitted in the case before the Istanbul 23rd High Criminal Court. Ayaz noted that while Ekin stated in his testimony that he had no connection with Hacıoğlu beyond exchanging files, Hacıoğlu continues to be tried as a defendant.

Ayaz stated that the material and moral elements of the crime alleged in the case were not established. Noting that Hacıoğlu is a journalist who brings issues debated in the public sphere to the forefront, Ayaz requested an acquittal for Hacıoğlu and the lifting of judicial supervision measures.

The court sentenced Hacıoğlu to 4 years and 2 months in prison

After hearing the defenses, the court panel announced its decision, convicting Hacıoğlu not of the crime of “membership in a terrorist organization,” but of “knowingly and willingly aiding a terrorist organization without being part of its hierarchical structure.”

The court initially sentenced Hacıoğlu to 5 years in prison. It then reduced the sentence by one-third under the provisions of Article 220/7, second sentence, of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), bringing the sentence down to 3 years and 4 months in prison.

The panel increased the sentence by half, raising it to 4 years and 12 months in prison, based on the assessment that the crime was committed “through the media” under Article 5 of Law No. 3713 on the Fight Against Terrorism. Subsequently, applying a discretionary reduction under Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code, the court decided to sentence Hacıoğlu to 4 years and 2 months in prison.

The court ruled that there was no basis for applying provisions regarding suspension or deferral of the sentence. It also decided to maintain the international travel ban on Hacıoğlu.

Background of the case

As part of an investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, Medya Haber TV employees Reyhan Hacıoğlu, Ahmet Güneş, Velat Ekin, Rahime Karvar, Vedat Örüç, and Necla Demir were detained on 17 January 2025. Hacıoğlu and the other journalists were imprisoned pending trial three days later on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization.”

In the indictment, Hacıoğlu's statements on television programs, her interviews with news sources, and her social media posts were cited as evidence of criminal activity.

As part of the same investigation, journalist Velat Ekin, owner of Güncel Medya Prodüksiyon, was also detained and imprisoned pending trial on 20 January. The case against Ekin was heard at the Istanbul 23rd High Criminal Court. At the end of the first hearing, the court acquitted Ekin of “membership in a terrorist organization” and released him on the grounds that “the elements of the crime were not present.”