Selçuk Bayraktar files for compensation against Sedat Yılmaz and Yeni Yaşam newspaper

President Erdoğan’s son-in-law Selçuk Bayraktar filed a compensation lawsuit against journalist Sedat Yılmaz and Yeni Yaşam newspaper for TL 150,000 over news report on drone sales

CANSU PİŞKİN, İSTANBUL

Selçuk Bayraktar, a son-in-law of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the CTO of drone maker Baykar, filed a compensation lawsuit against journalist Sedat Yılmaz and Yeni Yaşam newspaper, seeking TL 150,000 in non-pecuniary damage.

The lawsuit stems from a news report, published on the website of Yeni Yaşam on 22 November 2021 under the title “Bayraktar SİHA’lar hangi ülkeye nasıl satılıyor” (“How and to which countries are Bayraktar UCAVs sold”) and in the print issue of the newspaper on 23 November 2021 under the title “Erdoğan ailesi ve devlet Bayraktar’ın satış mümessili gibi: Aile boyu savaş ticareti” (“Erdoğan family and the state are like Bayraktar’s sale representatives: Family size war trade”).

The first hearing in the trial is scheduled to take place on 16 May 2022 at İstanbul’s Bakırköy 14th Civil Court of First Instance.

Sedat Yılmaz’s news report claims that “President Erdoğan was personally involved in the marketing of the Bayraktar TB2 UCAVs, manufactured by his son-in-law’s company” and mentions that a number of foreign countries purchased Bayraktar UCAVs after procuring state grants from Turkey.

The complaint lodged by Bayraktar’s lawyers with the Bakırköy 14th Civil Court of First Instance argued that Yılmaz’s report was not about “press freedom, reporting the news or providing information,” and “contained insult and defamation.” “The defendants wrote, falsely and unfoundedly, that the entire state bureaucracy acted as the client’s personnel and marketed the UAV and UCAV systems due to his personal kinship with President Erdoğan,” the complaint read, “In the article at issue, the defendant has attacked the personal rights of the client by writing false headlines such as ‘Erdoğan’s family business,’ ‘Diplomats as marketing staff,’ ‘First the state grant, then the sale,’ and ‘Do the grants come back to Bayraktar’.”

“No concern with public good”

Sedat Yılmaz’s news report did not “comply with press freedom” or “pursue public good,” according to the complaint: “The defendants published this article to discredit the client, providing the public with false and fabricated information without conducting any research. It is not clear what public good was pursued in the article in question. The false and fabricated statements in the news content have no concern with providing information or reporting the news, and it is certainly not possible for them to comply with press freedom. The defendant clearly acted with the intent to attack and damage the client’s personal rights, and impugned his honour and prestige in the public eye.”

The complaint argued that while the Turkish Constitution safeguarded free press, freedom of the press was not unlimited. “In fulfilling their function of public interest, both print and visual media should consider especially the accuracy of their outputs, the social interest and the actuality of the subject matter, and maintain the balance between substance and form while reporting the news. Again, the press should operate within objective limits,” the complaint said.

“Government takes pride in what the complainant sees as a violation”

In their petition submitted in response to Bayraktar’s complaint, Sercan Korkmaz, Sedat Yılmaz’s lawyer, asked the court dismiss the case. Stressing that the relationship between public officials and private companies was a public matter, Korkmaz wrote: “Above all, if the said relationship involves kinship, a journalist is obligated to act on behalf of the public and assume a more challenging and investigative stance and enlighten the public by reporting the news that would lead to public debate, scrutiny and inquiry. Journalism performs its duty as public watchdog precisely to investigate, examine, question and interpret these kinds of relationships. Members of the press monitor, on behalf of the public, whether the public resources are used in a fair, transparent and equal manner and in accordance with universal law. For this reason, the government and large businesses should accept that there will be not only praises, but also articles and news reports that contain critical analysis and comments.”

Korkmaz noted that President Erdoğan had delivered statements concerning the marketing of UCAVs. “It is ironic that the complainant considers this issue, about which the state bureaucracy and the President talked with praise and pride, a violation of his personal rights. The events, facts and claims in the news report are sufficient and pertinent to comment on in view of the ‘apparent truth’ principle; hold actuality; feature the intellectual link between subject matter and expression, and are well founded. Therefore, it is not possible to claim that the events mentioned in the article do not completely reflect the truth.”

Lawyer Korkmaz requested the court to dismiss the case, noting that the news article in question was lawful and complied with the criteria of “accuracy, public good and social interest, actuality and intellectual link between subject matter and expression.”

Recently, Bayraktar filed another compensation lawsuit against journalist Şirin Payzın and Halk TV over her remarks about the sale of UAVs and UCAVs, seeking TL 150,000 in non-pecuniary damage.

Selçuk Bayraktar is also the founding chairman of the Turkey Technology Team (T3) Foundation, which filed a compensation lawsuit against journalist Çiğdem Toker over a news article she penned in 2019, which was partially accepted by the relevant court last week. The court ordered Toker to pay the T3 Foundation TL 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Following the verdict, Bayraktar publicly targeted Toker, calling the veteran journalist “a sorry excuse for a journalist.” Bayraktar’s statements were condemned by journalism organizations.