The Legal Unit of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) has filed an appeal against the arrest of journalist Elif Akgül, who was detained on Feb. 18 as part of an investigation into the Peoples' Democratic Congress (HDK). The appeal, submitted to Istanbul’s 8th Criminal Judgeship of Peace on Feb. 25, argues that Akgül was targeted for her journalistic activities, that there is no concrete evidence against her, and that her detention is unlawful.
Charges based solely on journalism
The appeal states that Akgül has been a journalist for 13 years, working with various media outlets, primarily Bianet, and that her work serves the public interest. It emphasizes that she is an independent feminist journalist with no affiliation to any organized group.
According to the appeal, the main accusation against Akgül stems from her attendance at an HDK event in 2011. It highlights that HDK is a legal political platform with no court ruling declaring it illegal or linked to any terrorist organization. The fact that HDK’s website remains active and the group continues its activities in public spaces further underscores the lack of legal basis for the charges.
"Journalism cannot be treated as criminal evidence"
The appeal stresses that Akgül’s participation in HDK meetings was part of her journalistic duties and cannot be considered a crime. It also cites rulings by Turkey’s Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which protect journalists’ rights to attend events of public interest. The argument maintains that linking Akgül’s professional reporting to terrorism charges violates press freedom and freedom of expression.
"No evidence justifying arrest"
The appeal argues that there is no strong suspicion of guilt supporting the charge of "membership in an armed terrorist organization." The only evidence cited is her attendance at an HDK event in 2011. However, according to precedents set by the Constitutional Court and Court of Cassation, involvement in a civil society platform alone does not constitute a crime.
The prosecution has not presented any concrete evidence of Akgül’s participation in any organizational activity. The appeal also criticizes the inclusion of wiretap recordings from 2012 in the investigation, arguing that retaining and using such recordings after so many years violates the principle of legal foreseeability.
"No risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence"
The appeal emphasizes that Akgül should be released, citing strong legal grounds. It points out that she was aware of the investigation yet continued her work as a journalist without attempting to flee. She has a fixed residence and a stable life, eliminating any risk of absconding. Additionally, as the evidence has already been collected, there is no risk of tampering with it.
Furthermore, the appeal highlights Akgül’s long-standing public presence as a journalist and argues that her arrest is excessive and arbitrary. It suggests that less restrictive measures, such as judicial control, could be applied instead of detention.
"A direct attack on press freedom"
The appeal describes Akgül’s arrest as a serious violation of press and expression freedoms. It asserts that journalists must be able to inform the public without fear of criminalization and that prosecuting Akgül for her journalism contradicts democratic values.
Citing precedents from the Court of Cassation and the ECHR, the appeal stresses that press freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It warns that prosecuting journalists for their professional activities leads to censorship and self-censorship.
Call for immediate release
In light of these arguments, the appeal demands Akgül’s immediate release and the annulment of what it calls an unlawful detention order. Her lawyers argue that she is being unfairly targeted due to her identity as a journalist.
(BA)
