EYLEM SONBAHAR
A Turkish court has postponed the second hearing in the retrial of journalist Merdan Yanardağ, who is being prosecuted over a 2021 opinion piece titled “Düzenin mafyalaşması” (“The mafia-like transformation of the system”), in which he allegedly insulted the Turkish nation and state institutions.
At the hearing held on May 21 at Istanbul’s 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, Yanardağ was not present, but his lawyer, Bilgütay Hakkı Durna, appeared in court. The prosecutor repeated a previous sentencing request submitted on Dec. 10, 2024. The court decided to examine the case file and adjourned proceedings until Sept. 25.
Durna argued that the column constituted political commentary rather than criminal insult, stating: “The appellate court overturned the previous ruling both on procedural and substantive grounds. It asked for justification regarding which expressions in the article allegedly constituted insult. The article as a whole discusses the dynamics of capitalism. The phrase ‘the mafia-like transformation of the system’ does not belong solely to my client but is a concept in political terminology. There is no criminal element here; my client was making a political critique. We request an acquittal.”
Representatives of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), lawyers from the Turkish Journalists’ Union, and several journalists also attended the hearing.
The trial is part of ongoing concerns about press freedom in Turkey, where journalists frequently face criminal charges for their reporting and commentary. The country is ranked among the lowest globally in RSF’s press freedom index.
Yanardağ, editor-in-chief of opposition-leaning broadcaster TELE1, had originally been sentenced on April 13, 2023, to seven months and 15 days in prison on charges of “insulting the Republic of Turkey and its institutions” over the same column, which was published in the BirGün newspaper on May 23, 2021.
However, Istanbul’s 27th Regional Court of Justice overturned that verdict, citing a lack of clarity regarding which specific statements in the article were considered insulting. The court also noted that it had not been sufficiently explained how the publication of the piece in both the print and online editions of the newspaper justified applying “successive offense” provisions in sentencing. The file was then returned to the lower court for a retrial.
