The court will await the completion of the expert examination of the digital materials in the case in which seven people, including five journalists, are standing trial over news reports and articles published in Yeni Özgür Politika and PolitikArt

CANAN COŞKUN, ISTANBUL

The fourth hearing in the case brought against journalists Tuğçe Yılmaz, Erdoğan Alayumat, Suzan Demir, Taylan Abatan and Gülcan Dereli, along with translator Serap Güneş and sociologist Berfin Atlı, on charges of “knowingly and willingly aiding a criminal organization without being part of its hierarchical structure” over articles published in Yeni Özgür Politika and PolitikArt and the royalties they received, was held at the 13th Istanbul High Criminal Court on 17 September 2026.

Journalist Erdoğan Alayumat and the defendants’ lawyers were present at the hearing, which was monitored by P24.

The prosecutor, reiterating their final opinion on the case announced on 2 January 2026, sought conviction for the impugned crime.

When asked for his statement regarding the closing submission, Alayumat said he was reiterating his previous defense and requested the return of his digital materials and the lifting of the ban on leaving the country. The defense lawyers also requested the lifting of the judicial supervision measures imposed on their clients and the return of the digital materials.

The court ruled that the travel ban should remain in place for Tuğçe Yılmaz, Erdoğan Alayumat, Suzan Demir, Serap Güneş and Berfin Atlı. Ruling that the court must await the completion of the expert examination of the digital materials seized from the defendants, the court adjourned the case until 8 December 2026.

Background of the case

As part of an operation conducted by the Eskişehir Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, simultaneous raids were carried out on 26 November 2024 in Istanbul, Diyarbakır, Ankara and Batman. As part of these operations, journalists Erdoğan Alayumat, Suzan Demir, Taylan Abatan, Gülcan Dereli, translator Serap Güneş and sociologist Berfin Atlı were detained in Istanbul, transferred to Eskişehir and held in custody for four days. The journalists taken from Istanbul were subsequently released subject to judicial supervision.

The Eskişehir Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the case files of those detained in Istanbul to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office following a decision on lack of jurisdiction.

Following the ruling on lack of jurisdiction, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded its investigation into these individuals on 5 September 2025 and drew up an indictment charging them with “knowingly and willingly aiding a criminal organization, whilst not being part of its hierarchical structure.”

In the indictment, the prosecutor, who claimed that Yeni Özgür Politika and PolitikArt were the PKK’s media outlets, cited the royalty payments made to the writers as evidence for the charge.

It was argued that the news and content published in the media outlets mentioned in the indictment “contained propaganda for the PKK/KCK terrorist organization,” and that the activities in question could not be assessed on the basis of press freedom. The actions under investigation were classified as “terrorist organization activities.” Furthermore, Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) reports, bank transfer records and social media posts were included as evidence in the indictment.

The indictment was accepted by the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court. The first hearing was held on 9 December 2025. At the conclusion of the first hearing, the court ruled to lift the judicial supervision condition requiring weekly sign-ins, whilst maintaining the ban on traveling abroad.

The prosecution’s final opinion on the case was presented to the court on 2 January 2026. The prosecutor sought sentencing for the impugned crime. The prosecutor assessed the defendants’ submission of articles and content to Yeni Özgür Politika and PolitikArt as contributing to the continuity of these publications. He alleged that, in this way, the defendants acted as intermediaries in conveying the organization’s aims and objectives to the public, used the power of the press in an “illegal” manner, and increased sympathy for the organization’s acts of violence. According to the prosecutor, the defendants established a “financial relationship” with the organization through the royalties they received, and this relationship was sufficient to constitute the offense of aiding an armed terrorist organization