Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş and 4 journalists appear in court: All defendants acquitted

The trial of 5 journalists, including Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş, has begun. The 5 journalists appeared in court in the case involving the expert witness whose name was disclosed by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.

Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş, who is currently detained, was brought from Marmara Prison in Silivri to the Istanbul 54th Criminal Court of First Instance. In addition to Toktaş, Managing Editor Serhan Asker, Programs Coordinator Kürşad Oğuz, commentator Barış Pehlivan, and presenter Seda Selek appeared in court.

Following the identity verification at the hearing, Seda Selek began her defense. The highlights of Selek's defense are as follows: 

“The program schedule for January 27, 2025, which is cited as the basis for the accusation against me, had been determined a day in advance, and the topics had been shared with my guests who were to participate in the broadcast that day. However, the broadcast underwent changes due to breaking news, and the press conference of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, which began at 10:00, ran over into my broadcast that started at 11:00. While the broadcast was ongoing, I was informed through my earpiece that there was an audio recording related to the expert witness mentioned by Ekrem İmamoğlu in his press conference, and that this recording, which had been turned into a news story, would be aired. Subsequently, the audio recording was broadcast on Halk TV.”

“While the transcript of this conversation I had during the broadcast is included in the case file, and it is clearly evident that I did not have the initiative to put the news content in question on air, it is clear that a decision of non-prosecution should have been issued after I was detained and subjected to severe judicial control measures. Nevertheless, I leave it to the public to judge what the preparation of an indictment against me signifies. I must state once again that until it was told to me from the control room and aired, I did not know that a news story was being prepared and would be aired regarding the interview between journalist Barış Pehlivan and S.B., who is also a complainant in this case, concerning the issues raised by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu in his press conference. Consequently, I do not accept the accusations leveled against me. It is clear that I did not act with the intent to commit these crimes, and I request my acquittal and the lifting of the judicial control measures against me.”

UP TO 14 YEARS IN PRISON SOUGHT

Regarding Barış Pehlivan and Kürşad Oğuz “Recording non-public conversations between individuals, influencing those performing judicial duties, and publishing recorded conversations through press and media outlets.”” with the allegation that they face 6 to 14 years in prison.

For Suat Toktaş, who was arrested during the investigation, and Seda Selek and Serhan Asker, who were released under judicial control, “Broadcasting recorded conversations through press and media, Influencing a Judicial Officer” charges carry a requested prison sentence of 4 to 9 years.

Following Seda Selek's defense in the expert witness case, Kürşad Oğuz presented his defense.

In his defense, Kürşad Oğuz stated: "I see this case not as one filed against me, but as one filed against journalism, and I am worried for my child. I recorded the conversation of the expert witness, who faces many accusations, with the motive of journalism and to avoid making a mistake. The person being recorded also knew that the conversation was being held by a journalist."

Testifying before the judge in the expert witness case, Pehlivan said, "The indictment contains 3.5 pages of transcripts from Ekrem İmamoğlu's press conference and 3 pages of program transcripts; this indictment does not contain the transcript of the phone conversation that is the actual subject of the case."

From Barış Pehlivan's testimony:

"I WISH THE EXPERT WITNESS HAD COME HERE"

I wish the expert witness had come here, but they did not. According to the prosecutor's and the complainant's claims, I forced the expert to speak after introducing myself. In the phone conversation that was not included in the indictment, there is no declaration of intent stating that they did not want to speak with me. What they did not want was not to speak, but to be hosted in the Halk TV studio.

"THE EXPERT WITNESS SAID 'SORRY' 4 TIMES AND 'THANK YOU' 2 TIMES"

It is claimed that I spoke with an oppressive tone. If that were the case, would the expert witness have said 'sorry' to me 4 times and 'thank you' 2 times?

Another claim is that I attempted to influence the expert witness and wanted to create public opinion against them... I cannot influence an expert report that has already been written and submitted in the past. This claim is moot.

BARIŞ TERKOĞLU'S NAME WAS WRITTEN INSTEAD OF BARIŞ PEHLİVAN IN THE TRANSCRIPT!

I will not even go into the illegality and lack of seriousness regarding the fact that Barış Terkoğlu's name was written instead of mine in the transcript of the analysis I made with the expert witness. I will also not comment on the fact that nothing is said about figures like Melih Gökçek and Hamza Dağ publishing this conversation on social media.

"IF I WERE GOING TO FLEE, I WOULD HAVE FLED THAT DAY; AS A MANAGER, I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY"

From the testimony given by Toktaş in court:

I was arrested on suspicion of flight risk and tampering with evidence. If I were going to flee, I would have fled that day, but I did not. As an executive, I took responsibility.

While three of my colleagues were in custody, I was at the channel that day and managed the broadcast. There is no evidence to be tampered with here. Hamza Dağ and Melih Gökçek broadcast the same audio recording. Beyaz TV broadcast it the same evening. Osman Gökçek commented on it. Why is it a right for them but not for us?

"WE ARE IN LOVE WITH THIS COUNTRY, WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE"

There is nothing here that has caused public outrage. I have two children abroad. Even when I go to visit them, I get bored after a few days and return to the country.

We are people in love with this country; we are not going anywhere.

Those looking through a political lens see a political score here; those looking through a judicial lens see a crime here; those looking from the perspective of journalism see news here.

"THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD"

The Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Family, the Ministry of Environment... Whatever the news is, we call them too. The indictment is extremely full of procedural errors; it is an indictment where expressions aimed at a specific purpose are omitted and not included. I see an effort here to obscure evidence in our favor. All of Barış Pehlivan's questions are journalism. The next day, Yeni Şafak also called the expert witness, but there is a double standard.

The expert witness provides information that serves his own interests in his conversation. There is also criticism of the CHP in that conversation; I did not cut that either, I remained a journalist to the end. A news story is formed with the one or two sentences he received. He said the same thing to Yeni Şafak, and they also reported it. The expert witness told both us and them, 'I also wrote reports against the AK Party and the MHP.' In other words, he shared information in his favor during that conversation.

Could a journalist have called for a chat? An expert witness who submits files to such critical cases should have the judgment to know that they are not being called by a journalist just for no reason.

"YES, I PUBLISHED IT. I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT"

When Barış Pehlivan wrote this to me, my first question was, 'Does he have permission? He won't file a lawsuit, will he?' That is the right question.

Barış wrote, 'Brother, we are journalists.' I said, 'Then we will publish it.' I published it and then checked back. I saw that Barış had written, 'Brother, there is no permission.' Hundreds of journalists who work with me know my standard rule. Everything must come out correctly from the source.

The question I asked was correct, and the answer I received caused a defect in intent. Yes, I published it. I take responsibility for the matter. From here on, the discretion is yours. If I had the intent to commit a crime, I would not have asked, 'Does he have permission?' The expert witness's name was given in code. When I realized there was no permission, it was not published again. If I had the intent to commit a crime, I would have published it again.

The highlights from Serhan Asker's testimony are as follows:

"THEY TOOK ME TO THE ROBBERY BUREAU FIRST"

I was on leave on the day that led to the accusations. When the investigation was launched, I expected them to include me in my capacity as the managing editor. They detained me and took me to the Robbery Bureau.

Then, when TBB President Erinç Sağkan and our lawyer arrived, we asked, and they took me in for questioning. The first question was, 'Did you form a political party?' No, I did not. Because of me, they seized my 20-year-old daughter's green passport and detained her at the airport for an hour. They detained my daughter because of her father.

"I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO BE AT EDİP AKBAYRAM'S FUNERAL"

May God have mercy on him, I would have liked to be at Edip Akbayram's funeral, but we were forced to defend ourselves here. If I need to explain Suat Toktaş's approach to news, he called me to find out the reason why E. Akbayram was in the hospital. He said we needed to learn the reason instead of just writing 'E. Akbayram is in the hospital.' I called the family and learned he was hospitalized with pneumonia. He is that meticulous of a journalist.

PROSECUTION REQUESTED CONTINUATION OF DETENTION

Following the statements, the prosecutor announced their opinion. They requested that the detention of Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş continue.

Taking the floor in response to the prosecutor's opinion, Toktaş said, "It is not that easy; I have dedicated 30 years to this profession. I am just someone doing their job; I would go and serve time again, that is not a problem. I am staying in a place three steps wide. Is it that easy to request the continuation of detention?" he said.

The defendants and their lawyers, who took the floor in turn, stated that they did not agree with the prosecutor's opinion and reiterated their requests for acquittal. 

A recess was called for the decision in the expert witness case. 

ACQUITTAL FOR EVERYONE 

The first hearing of the "expert witness" case filed against Halk TV, which broadcast a phone conversation with an expert whose name was revealed by IMM Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, was held at the Istanbul 54th Criminal Court of First Instance in Çağlayan Courthouse. The court ruled for the acquittal of all defendants.

OBJECTION FROM THE PROSECUTOR 

The prosecutor objected to the acquittal decision rendered for Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş and the other defendants.