Eylem Sonbahar
The first hearing of a case against three journalists and a lawyer over their reports and social media posts about allegations that a prosecutor was removed from the Newborn Gang investigation was held at the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance in Istanbul. The court lifted a travel ban imposed on lawyer İrem Çiçek, one of the defendants in the case.
The charges stem from reports and tweets claiming that prosecutor Yavuz Engin, who had been leading the investigation into the so-called Newborn Gang—an alleged criminal group involved in crimes related to newborns—was dismissed from the case. Those accused of "publicly disseminating misleading information" include HalkTV.com.tr Managing Editor Dinçer Gökçe, GazetePencere.com Managing Editor Nilay Can, journalist Veysi Dündar, lawyer İrem Çiçek, and one additional individual.
In November, three of the journalists were detained as part of the investigation but were released under judicial control. Meanwhile, lawyer İrem Çiçek was placed under house arrest. At the hearing, lawyers from the Istanbul Bar Association observed the proceedings.
Lawyer denies charges and accuses authorities of intimidation
During her defense, lawyer İrem Çiçek read out her tweet, which is central to the case, and denied the allegations against her. She explained that, as a lawyer familiar with many criminal cases, she had noticed that subsequent investigations were often handled by the same prosecutors. However, in this case, prosecutor Yavuz Engin was replaced.
"I am involved in the case as a victim's attorney at the Bakırköy 22nd High Criminal Court. A nurse contacted me, wanting to provide testimony as a confidential witness. I arranged for her to testify at the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, but her statement was not taken," Çiçek said. She added that she later directed the nurse to the Büyükçekmece Courthouse, where prosecutor Engin informed the nurse he had been removed from the case and would direct her to another prosecutor. Çiçek stated she tweeted about these events two days later.
Çiçek argued that the charges against her were baseless, saying, "This tweet contains neither defamation nor false accusations. The claims in the indictment are untrue, and I reject the charges against me." She further alleged that Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code, under which she was charged, is being used to intimidate critics of the government.
Editors and journalist deny involvement
Dinçer Gökçe, Managing Editor of HalkTV.com.tr, testified that he had seen the relevant tweet but did not personally review it before it was turned into a news story. He noted that it is not feasible for him to monitor every article published on the website in real time. Gökçe also stated that he had personally contacted the Ministry of Justice to confirm the allegations and shared their denial on his personal social media account. He requested acquittal and the lifting of his travel ban.
Similarly, GazetePencere.com Managing Editor Nilay Can told the court she was not involved in the publication of the news story. "I was out of town the day the story was shared. When I returned home, three police officers came to my house and showed me a printed version of the tweet," Can said. She asked for her acquittal.
Journalist Veysi Dündar also denied the charges, stating that he had shared HalkTV's story on his social media account and later posted follow-ups clarifying that the allegations were not true.
Legal defense and criticism of the indictment
Lawyer Serkan Günel, representing İrem Çiçek, criticized the case as baseless, stating, "There is no evidence of any action that disturbed public peace. The elements of the alleged offense under Article 217/A are absent." He also requested the court to summon the nurse as a witness.
Nilay Can’s lawyer, Ali Deniz Ceylan, called the case a violation of press and expression freedoms. "The prosecutor who prepared this indictment appears unaware of the requirements of Article 217/A. For the alleged crime to exist, there must be evidence that false news was knowingly disseminated, which is not the case here," he argued. He added that the headline and content of the news story were amended after the Justice Ministry’s clarification.
Court decisions and next steps
The prosecutor requested that deficiencies in the case file be addressed and that judicial control measures on the defendants be lifted. The court agreed to lift the travel bans imposed on the defendants and ordered an expert to examine video evidence related to the case.
However, the court rejected requests to hear İrem Çiçek’s father, Dursun Çiçek, and prosecutor Yavuz Engin as witnesses. It also decided to separate one defendant's case from the main file. The trial was adjourned to March 4 at 11:00 a.m.
The case has drawn criticism from press freedom advocates, who see it as part of a broader crackdown on independent journalism and dissenting voices in Turkey.
