Eylem Sonbahar
In the trial of former AKUT Search and Rescue Association President Nasuh Mahruki, the prosecutor requested a conviction, alleging that Mahruki's social media posts were made with the intent to create "anxiety, fear, and panic among the public without evidence."
The second hearing of the case, where Mahruki faces charges of "publicly disseminating misleading information," was held at Istanbul’s 15th Criminal Court of First Instance. Mahruki had been detained on Nov. 20 following remarks criticizing the electronic voting system announced by Ahmet Yener, head of Turkey’s Supreme Election Council (YSK). He was released on Dec. 5 after 15 days in custody.
Limited attendance at court session
Due to the small courtroom size, only a limited number of people were allowed to attend. The hearing was observed by Aylin Nazlıaka, deputy chair of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), as well as lawyers and journalists.
Mahruki, who attended the hearing with his lawyer Şehmus Tekik, submitted an additional defense statement, arguing that the accusations were baseless. "I am being tried under Article 217/A. Since I did not commit this crime, it is irrelevant to apply Article 218/1 in this case," Mahruki stated.
His lawyer Tekik added, "Article 218/1 of the Turkish Penal Code was enacted in 2005, while Article 217/A was introduced in 2022. Article 218/1 does not encompass Article 217/A. Furthermore, this crime can only be committed through media or publication. This is the nature of the regulation."
Allegations and prosecutor's demand
In his final opinion, the prosecutor alleged that Mahruki’s posts claimed irregularities in the granting of citizenship to foreign nationals, fraudulent practices in current and future elections, allowing deceased individuals to vote, and warnings of a potential civil war. These posts, according to the prosecutor, were made publicly without concrete evidence, causing "anxiety, fear, and panic" among the public, and merited punishment under the charge of "publicly disseminating misleading information."
Mahruki rejects allegations, demands expert testimony
Rejecting the prosecutor’s argument, Mahruki defended his statements as expertise-based opinions, stating, "I am a graduate of the National Security Academy. This matter requires expertise, and my remarks are supported by events in Syria. I merely shared my thoughts on the issue. If my defense is not taken into account, I request that experts like Ümit Özdağ or authors on this subject be summoned as witnesses."
The court had previously rejected Mahruki’s request to summon witnesses during an earlier hearing. For this reason, the judge ruled there was no need to reconsider the matter. Granting Mahruki and his lawyer additional time to respond to the prosecutor's arguments, the court adjourned the trial to Feb. 21.
