A lesson in law and press freedom from a prosecutor to a former prosecutor!..

During his tenure at the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, almost all criticism directed at Akın Gürlek was turned into a subject of litigation under the accusation of “targeting public officials involved in the fight against terrorism.”

When Gürlek was appointed Minister of Justice, the first thought that came to my mind was the question: “He is now a political figure. Does this mean that political criticism or parliamentary motions filed against him will also be considered targeting public officials involved in the fight against terrorism?”

You may have heard Minister Gürlek's first reaction after CHP Chairman Özgür Özel brought up certain allegations regarding his assets the other day; he said, “His irresponsible targeting of me in this manner, due to the struggle I have waged against terrorism and organized crime structures throughout my judicial duty, is part of a systematic smear campaign.”

Again, the other evening, there was an iftar program at the Presidential Palace with Erdoğan and various journalists and writers. Explaining the difficulties and importance of journalism, and emphasizing that “a strong social structure is only possible with a healthy flow of information,” that “Turkey and the wider region need journalists who are intellectually free, have free pens, clear minds, are conscientious, well-equipped, and nourished by the values of the nation,” and that “a strong media where people can easily access accurate information, where different views can be expressed freely, and where truth is placed at the center is of vital importance for all of us,” Erdoğan concluded his remarks as follows:

“However, Turkey has longed for this atmosphere for many years. Television screens, newspaper columns, and magazine pages have been condemned to the monopoly of a uniform, single-voiced, and condescending mentality for decades. We lived through days in the past where different voices were silenced, and the public's right to impartial news was blocked. Media outlets were used recklessly as apparatuses for social and political engineering. But now, almost all of these are in the past. Media barons who used to topple and install governments with their headlines are now in the old Turkey. The media order that used to wag its finger at the nation, look down on the nation, and set the agenda for the national will and political institutions on behalf of tutelary powers is now behind us. The gunslingers who rented out their pens and columns to anti-democratic power centers are now behind us. The dark days when students going to Friday prayers were targeted in news bulletins are now behind us, along with their figures and extras. Today, we have a freer, more pluralistic, and more colorful press and broadcasting climate in every respect. With your efforts, we desire to protect and strengthen this climate. Even if those who lost their privileges are uncomfortable, I hope we will never allow those old days to be resurrected.”

The state of the media and journalists who do not unconditionally support the government is clear. Detentions, arrests, investigations, lawsuits, and access bans on news have reached levels unprecedented in Turkey's history. But somehow, at that iftar, there was no one to ask, “Alican Uludağ is just a journalist. Why was he arrested?”

What Did the Prosecutor of the Hablemitoğlu Case Accuse Me Of?

The reason for this introduction is to provide a concrete, timely example of both the narrative of “targeting public officials involved in the fight against terrorism” and the media landscape painted by Erdoğan.

The subject is the case of the murder of writer and academic Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu in front of his home in 2002.

While there was still a “confidentiality” order on the investigation, the pro-government media published the information and documents reached by the prosecutor—including allegations that he later did not include in his indictment—in great detail, and also clearly wrote the prosecutor's name.

In a rare occurrence in our judicial system, when the same prosecutor served as the trial prosecutor, his name was always mentioned in news reports whenever he was criticized by the defendants and their lawyers with accusations of “violating the confidentiality of the investigation, tampering with and concealing evidence.”

However, just as the case was reaching an impasse, two surprise developments occurred; a few months after this prosecutor submitted his final opinion, he was reassigned to Aksaray. Subsequently, on December 9, he announced that he had resigned from his 18-year prosecutorial duty to attend to his father's health problems. Afterward, he began working as a lawyer.

In the Hablemitoğlu case, which was heard one day before his resignation, one of the defendants, Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, claimed that the prosecutor was the “FETÖ imam of Kayseri,” and these claims were entered into the SEGBİS records. Not only I, but many journalists following the trial reported on those allegations by Bozkır.

But upon these allegations, the resigned prosecutor, now lawyer Zafer Ergün, filed a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against Nuri Gökhan Bozkır as well as myself, with accusations of “insulting a public official, slander, and disclosing the identity of a public official who took part in the fight against terrorism.”

I “Acted Together” with Bozkır, Whom I Have Never Met

First, let us share the criminal complaint of the resigned prosecutor Ergün as it is. It begins as follows:

“As of December 8, I have voluntarily left my position as Ankara Public Prosecutor, which I held. I have performed this public duty, which lasted approximately 18 years, for 8 years as a public prosecutor in the terrorism crimes investigation bureau within the Ankara Courthouse. This duty, which I started immediately after the coup attempt of July 15 carried out by the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization, continued until 2024. During my tenure, I served to conduct investigations into all terrorist organizations, primarily the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization.”

Continuing, the following is explained regarding the investigation of the Hablemitoğlu case and the assumption of the trial prosecutorship:

“After the investigation file regarding the murder of a person named Necip Hablemitoğlu in the Çankaya district of our province on December 18, 2002, which was being conducted by our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office but remained unsolved, was given to me in 2017 to carry out investigative procedures, as a result of the research I conducted, I prepared an indictment to file a public lawsuit against Mustafa Özcan, the so-called Turkey imam of the FETÖ/PDY of the period, whom I determined to be the instigator of the incident, as well as Enver Altaylı, Aydın Köstem, and Mustafa Levent Göktaş, who carried out the act of killing the victim by acting together with these people, and Fikret Emek, Ahmet Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, and Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, who acted under him. After the indictment was prepared, as a result of an additional assignment made to ensure the effective contribution of our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, I also represented the prosecution at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court exclusively for this file. In the trial held against the aforementioned defendants, I submitted the final opinion representing the prosecution, and the process of taking the defendants' defenses against the opinion and the judicial activity at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court are ongoing.”

In the end, the following accusations are summarized against Nuri Gökhan Bozkır and me:

“My effective performance as an investigation prosecutor in this investigation and bringing the perpetrators of the incident before the Court, and subsequently taking part in the prosecution process, disturbed some defendants and certain people who perform journalistic activities on behalf of the defendants in this case file, and made me a target for these people. Primarily the person named defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, by making baseless accusations at every opportunity, is trying to pressure me, thereby creating an influence on the Court panel and public opinion, and ultimately aiming to leave the case file baseless. The person named Müyesser Yıldız, with a journalist identity, also contributes to these actions by acting together with the defendant, and it is seen that she tries to target me by reporting these accusations on the internet by emphasizing them as if they had news value, and by clearly writing my name. Finally, in the trial held at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court on December 8, 2025, it is seen that the person named defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır made some baseless accusations against me that constitute insult and slander, and these accusations were shared first by the person named Müyesser Yıldız on her personal X account, and then on the internet news site named 12punto, where she works, along with the website in her name, by clearly including my name. It is understood that the person named defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır committed the crime of insulting a public official due to his duty and slander by making nonsensical statements that have nothing to do with reality, and the journalist Müyesser Yıldız committed the crime of insulting and slandering me by acting together with Nuri Gökhan Bozkır in writing this statement, and by clearly writing my name in these posts and news, committed the crime of disclosing the identity of a public official who took part in the fight against terrorism through the press. I respectfully submit and request that an investigation be conducted against the persons named Nuri Gökhan Bozkır and Müyesser Yıldız, and that a public lawsuit be filed against them within the scope of the alleged crimes.”

Prosecutor: No Targeting, Just Reporting on the Hearing

The investigation launched by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office Terrorism Crimes Investigation Bureau against Bozkır and me upon this criminal complaint by resigned prosecutor Zafer Ergün with the accusation of “targeting persons involved in the fight against terrorism” was concluded last week. The prosecutor's office issued a decision of “no grounds for prosecution” without even needing to take our statements.

Since it is important and remarkable, let us summarize the justification for this decision.

First of all, the SEGBİS transcript of the hearing on December 8, which was the subject of the complaint, was examined, and what Nuri Gökhan Bozkır said and the news I made were described. Then, the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Chambers regarding press freedom and the decisions of the ECHR were cited, and it was stated:

“In the concrete case where the defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır made some statements regarding the complainant during his defense as a defendant, and subsequently the suspect Müyesser Yıldız turned the event regarding this trial, which concerns the public, into news; it is understood that the issues expressed by the suspect Nuri Gökhan Bozkır in his defense do not fit any of the alternative actions regulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law, that he only mentioned the complainant by name, that it is natural for him to know the complainant by name and surname since he is being tried in the public lawsuit filed with the indictment prepared by the complainant, that the complainant's name and surname are generally known by people because the trial is a trial that concerns the public, and therefore there can be no mention of any disclosure of identity, and there is no statement in the form of targeting any terrorist organization...”

“When the news of the suspect Müyesser Yıldız on the website named 12punto.com.tr is examined; it is understood that some developments regarding how the hearing continued were mentioned, the defenses of the defendants were included, there was no statement based on interpretation, she acted within the scope of criticism and freedom of expression by conveying to the society within the scope of the right to receive news that is current, in the public interest, and worthy of interest, that the statements of the suspect Nuri Gökhan Bozkır and other defendants in the same case were summarized, that some information regarding the hearing held in the trial followed by the public in general was shared, that only the complainant's name and surname were mentioned in the news content, therefore there can be no mention of any disclosure of identity, and there is no statement in the form of targeting any terrorist organization in the news content, and that the action remains within the scope of press freedom protected by the Press Law, and therefore there are no grounds for prosecution...”

This is the point where law and press freedom have reached in our country... Since even hearing reports can now be made the subject of an accusation, what are we talking about?!

Müyesser YILDIZ

March 19, 2026