ARDIL BATMAZ
Mesopotamia News Agency (MA) editor Abdurrahman Gök was released after 225 days of imprisonment due to his news reports. He was banned from leaving the country. MLSA Co-Director Veysel Ok stated that this was a SLAPP case.
The second hearing of the case against Abdurrahman Gök, the editor of Mezopotamya Agency (MA), was held today (05 December 2023) at Diyarbakır 5th Assize Court. Gök was detained and arrested on 25 April during a house raid as part of an investigation by the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office on charges of "being an illegal organization member" and "making propaganda for an illegal organization."
Journalist Abdurrahman Gök was detained in Diyarbakır High-Security Prison No. 1. During his recent court hearing, he was brought to the courtroom in handcuffs. His lawyers, Resul Temur, Mehmet Emin Aktar, MLSA Co-Director Veysel Ok, and lawyer Emine Özhasar from MLSA Legal Unit, were present. The hearing was attended by journalist Gök's wife and family, Sertaç Kayar, a board member of the Turkish Journalists' Union Adana branch, representatives of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), Dicle Fırat Journalists Association (DFG), and Mesopotamia Women Journalists Platform (MKGP).
Akbıyık did not remember his statement
The hearing, which was supposed to start at 09.50, started at 10.50 due to the intensity of the file. Open witness Ümit Akbıyık was heard first.
Akbıyık, who was heard from Istanbul via SEGBİS, claimed that he met Abdurrahman Gök at Pel Production. Akbıyık claimed that Gök told him: "I have been active in the press field of the terror organization for a long time. I have been in and out of prison from time to time. I was assigned to conduct activities in Pel after I was released from prison for the last time".
During the trial, the judge asked Akbıyık about the date of his meeting with Gök. Akbıyık replied that he couldn't remember the exact date, but he had mentioned it in his statement during the investigation. However, the judge reminded him that his statement had not provided a date. Akbıyık then claimed that the conversation occurred in July or August of 2020.
Lawyer Resul Temur asked open witness Ümit Akbıyık, "Do you know the shooting incident of Kemal Kurtun?" Akbıyık said, "Yes, I know from the press," but he did not know who took the photographs of the moment Kurkut was killed. Akbıyık also stated that he "did not come across any action" of Abdurrahman Gök. Temur asked Akbıyık whether he had "any observations on Abdurrahman Gök's health between July and August 2020" and received "No."
Gök: I have not even seen the witness in my dreams at night
Abdurrahman Gök, who was then heard against the witness statement, said that he had a severe accident on the dates mentioned by the witness and that he even went to the hearings of the case with a walking stick. Gök continued:
"I must state that the witness statement does not reflect the truth. As a journalist with over 20 years of experience, I have spent the last decade reporting from conflict zones. It is important to note that I am not an employee of Pel Production but rather an employee of MA. All evidence presented by the prosecution and the police contradicts the witness's statement. The evidence in question is news that MA reported. The witness claimed that I had been in and out of prison multiple times, but I had never even seen him before. As the Kurdish saying goes, 'I haven't even seen the witness in my dreams at night.' When the prosecutor asked if I knew the witness, I responded that I did not know him and that he had no testimony against me. However, the witness was asked to testify 3-4 times and eventually stated me under direction."
"On the date mentioned by the witness, Gök is officially on rest."
After Gök's defense against the witness statement, the lawyers began to make their statements. Lawyer Resul Temur was the first to speak and stated that the witness did not know Abdurrahman Gök. According to Temur, it was evident that Gök was on official rest on the date mentioned by the witness and was sleeping at home. All the file documents showed that their client was working at the MA. The witness stated that he did not come across any act of Abdurrahman Gök, neither illegal nor legal. Therefore, the witness's statements should not be considered a basis for the judgment.
According to lawyer Mehmet Emin Aktar, the witness Ümit Akbıyık was connected to the hearings from different cities. Aktar claimed that Akbıyık was not a witness but an open informant traveling around under police protection. He also stated that Akbıyık was not expressing his own free will.
After the lawyers' statements, the prosecutor presented his final opinion and demanded the release of Abdurrahman Gök. The prosecutor considered the time Gök spent in detention and the evidence gathered.
Gök: I was the one taken to court, not the police officers
Abdurrahman Gök thanked the prosecutor for their request for release before continuing his speech.
"I see it as a form of journalism. However, it can come with risks, such as violence and threats of judgment. I experienced this after publishing the Kemal Kurkut photograph but was later acquitted in court. The photograph of Kemal Kurkut invalidated the statements made by the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and the Governor's Office. I documented and published 28 photographs of his killing by the police. Unfortunately, this systematic pressure has continued to this day. The court's primary motivation was to nullify the statement of the police and the governorship. On that day, I initiated the trial process for those policemen, but it seemed they were putting me on trial instead."
"A journalist must reveal the truth."
During the trial, the judge asked Gök about the HTS records. Gök replied that all the people listed in the records were journalists. According to him, journalists often call each other to offer condolences. He found it interesting that the records were maintained even when some journalists were in prison. Gök claimed the records were kept as if he had made phone calls with them.
When asked about the Kobane documentary, Gök said, "A journalist must reveal the truth, and that is what I did. Journalism is to be where the risk and danger are the most intense. It is to be close to the truth. Today, if President Erdoğan makes a negative statement about Gaza or Hamas, will those who are currently reporting in favor be prosecuted?" he asked.
'Kurds today are remembered with de facto unknown cases'
Lawyers made statements in support of their client, Gök. Lawyer Resul Temur stated that he agreed with the final opinion and that the file shows that their client was engaged in journalistic activities. He also mentioned that their client was awarded the Musa Anter award between the two hearings.
Veysel, Ok. This case is a SLAPP case.
MLS Co-Director Veysel Ok, who defended journalist Gök, stated that this is a SLAPP case.
"What is a SLAPP case? It is a series of trials filed one after another to prevent journalists who are good at their jobs from disturbing the government and companies from working. This is exactly what happened to Gök. I am glad he published the Kurkut photograph. Since that day, he has probably been to the courthouse more than you. This case is a project designed to prevent him from practicing his profession. I agree with the opinion with excitement and honor, but I will criticize the indictment. The first five pages of the 14-page indictment include the establishment of the KCK and witness statements. However, there is no statement by Gök in the 14-page indictment. Why is not even one sentence of Abdurrahman Gök included in the indictment? This is a SLAPP case, aiming to prevent Gök from doing journalism."
"Hello, I work for the terror organization."
Ok, who stated that Pel Prodüksiyon is a legal company, said that Abdurrahman Gök did not work there and that criminalizing Pel Prodüksiyon is not the correct method—ok reminded the statement made by Akbıyık, in which Gök allegedly said to him: "I have been active in the press field of the terror organization for a long time. I have been in and out of prison from time to time. I was assigned to participate in Pel after I was last released from prison." Ok argued that according to the statement, Abdurrahman Gök said to a person he met for the first time: "Hello, I work for the terror organization." Therefore, Ok suggested that open witness Ümit Akbıyık should be tried. The Court of Cassation has ruled that the testimony of an informant cannot be taken as a basis for a judgment alone. Therefore, his
About the Constitutional Court's (AYM) decision on Cemil Uğur, Ok stated that journalists are responsible for the news they report. A journalist cannot be judged based on the agency they work for. There are meetings with journalists in the HTS records. Considering all the indictments and annexes, it becomes clear that the reason behind the incident is Kemal Kurkut. Kurkut and Gök are inseparable. It is an illusion to say that I know Kurkut and don't remember Abdurrahman.
The court announced its verdict after a recess and released Abdurrahman Gök. The court set the next hearing for 12 March 2024 and issued a travel ban for Gök.
