- An objection has been filed against the detention of imprisoned journalist Alican Uludağ, who was transferred to Silivri Prison today. Uludağ’s lawyers objected to the arrest decision issued by the Istanbul 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
- In the petition of objection, it was argued that the investigation was conducted by an unauthorized prosecutor’s office, that there is no concrete evidence showing strong criminal suspicion, and that the detention is disproportionate.
MLSA — An objection was filed against the detention of journalist Alican Uludağ. Uludağ was taken to Silivri today and placed in Marmara Closed Penal Execution Institution No. 1 Prison.
In the objection petition submitted by Uludağ’s lawyers to the Istanbul 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace, it was stated that the arrest decision dated Feb. 20, 2026, and numbered 2026/244 interrogation, is “contrary to the scope of the file, disproportionate and clearly unlawful.”
“The prosecutor’s office has no authority”
In the petition, it was argued that the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Terror Crimes Investigation Bureau do not have the authority to conduct an investigation in the file. It was emphasized that the investigation was conducted unlawfully in terms of territorial jurisdiction.
“No concrete evidence of strong criminal suspicion”
The lawyers stated that the judgeship’s justification for detention does not correspond with the alleged act, the penalty amount prescribed by law for the offense, or the content of the file. The petition said that there is not a single concrete piece of evidence showing strong criminal suspicion.
It was noted that all accusations directed at Uludağ are based on his social media posts, and that these posts are already included in the file. It was argued that there are no witnesses in the file and that it is not possible for there to be any, and that the possibility of tampering with evidence is not based on concrete facts.
Regarding the charge of insulting the President, the petition stated that “the only person allegedly insulted in the file is the President,” and argued that it is contrary to the ordinary course of life for Uludağ to exert pressure on this person: “It is obvious that alleging that he would exert pressure on the President is meaningless. This justification of the judgeship is also clearly contrary to the concrete truth and the content of the file.”
“Suspicion of flight and tampering with evidence is not concrete”
The lawyers stated that not a single concrete fact has been shown indicating that Uludağ has a suspicion of flight. They argued that there is also no concrete determination regarding the possibility of destroying, concealing evidence, or putting pressure on witnesses.
It was pointed out that Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which was cited as the basis for detention, is not among the “catalog crimes” listed in Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK).
“Detention is disproportionate”
Referring to Article 100 of the CMK in the petition, it was emphasized that there must be proportionality between the importance of the matter and the expected sentence and the detention measure. It was argued that even if Uludağ were convicted of the alleged offense, he might not remain in prison, and that the detention is not proportionate to the expected sentence.
“Detention is contrary to the ECHR, the Constitution and high court rulings”
The lawyers argued that the detention decision is contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding detention and freedom of expression, to the articles of the Constitution concerning personal liberty and security and freedom of expression, and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Constitutional Court (AYM), and the Court of Cassation.
In the petition, it was requested that the objection be accepted and that Uludağ be released. In the event that the objection is rejected, it was requested that the file be sent to the competent Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance.
