Barış Pehlivan's statement during 'expert witness' detention revealed

The statement of the detained Barış Pehlivan lasted approximately one hour. Barış Pehlivan's statement is as follows:

“I have been a journalist for 22 years. To date, I have authored 5 books and thousands of news reports and articles. I am currently a commentator on the program titled Kayda Geçsin, which airs weekly on Halk TV, and a columnist for Cumhuriyet Newspaper. Throughout my journalistic career, I have been included in many investigations and lawsuits. 

The most significant of these was my arrest in 2011 as part of the Oda TV plot orchestrated by the FETÖ organization within the state. After being detained for 19 months, I was acquitted. Subsequently, I filed complaints against the judges and prosecutors who conducted that trial and became a complainant in the case where they were tried. 

On January 27, 2025, I was invited as a journalist to a press conference held at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality building in Saraçhane. At that press conference, Ekrem İmamoğlu drew attention to an expert witness who had been involved in investigations and lawsuits concerning CHP-led municipalities. I learned the subject of the press conference there, and in summary, İmamoğlu alleged that there were illegalities in the reports signed by this expert witness. 

After following the press conference, I began to think, ‘Could I reach this expert witness or do an exclusive story?’ Upon this, I obtained the expert witness's mobile phone number, called him, introduced myself, and declared that I was a journalist. I wanted to ask him personally about the allegations made against him at the press conference held by Ekrem İmamoğlu, which was watched by millions. 

My primary goal was to host him on Halk TV or conduct a face-to-face interview. After all, the Mayor of Istanbul, where 16 million people live, had made striking allegations about an expert witness by name. I called him to find out whether these allegations were true. What I did is the exercise of the right of reply in both Turkish and world literature. 

Ultimately, I asked him my questions, and the expert witness targeted by İmamoğlu denied the allegations against him. As you can see in the minutes reflected in the investigation, I stated that I wanted to host him on Halk TV or conduct a one-on-one exclusive interview with him; while he did not accept this, he wished me success. 

He even gave a humorous answer to a question about his age. Our conversation took place within the rules of courtesy and with a distant tone. What I have explained so far concerns my reason and purpose for conducting this interview and this phone call. 

I have no responsibility or involvement in any of the acts that the prosecution office alleges as crimes. I did not record the conversation. I did not share it with anyone. I did not broadcast it. And I did not disseminate it anywhere. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to have committed the crimes of unlawfully disclosing data obtained by recording non-public conversations between individuals and attempting to influence an expert witness. 

Because the only thing I did in the matter subject to this investigation was to ask a question as a journalist to the person at the center of the allegations. I have no involvement or responsibility in any other act. Moreover, rather than attempting to influence an expert witness, I personally gave the person targeted the right to express himself. 

Normally, I should have been appreciated for doing this, but now I am facing you with an accusation that I have no connection to. Furthermore, the expert witness must have adopted the same action he took with me—that is, giving an interview—as a correct method, as he also spoke to the Yeni Şafak newspaper on January 28, 2025. Now, how can the act of conducting an interview, which is not a crime for Yeni Şafak, be a crime for Barış Pehlivan from Halk TV?

Furthermore, if broadcasting that audio recording is a crime, it must be stated that many names, from AKP executive Hamza Dağ to former AKP mayor Melih Gökçek, have also committed this crime. Because, although I did not share this audio recording from my own social media account, these names and more shared and disseminated it from their own social media accounts without feeling the need for any censorship. 

In summary, I gave a right of reply to a name that Turkey is talking about. I have no connection to the accusations. I must state once again that I did not record the phone conversation in question. I did not share or broadcast it, and I did not disseminate it anywhere. Finally, I must state that although it is claimed that I acted with the intent to influence the expert witness in question, I must express that I could not have the capacity to commit the crime of influencing a person who has already completed this duty in the investigation files where the expert report has been prepared and has put their opinion into a report. 

Because it is no longer possible for me to commit a crime against a person who has already submitted their reports to the investigation files; a situation of an impossible crime is in question. Finally, I am a journalist. I acted only with the reflex of journalism. My reports may have disturbed a certain segment, or they may have felt uncomfortable with them, but I would like to state that this is in the nature of journalism and that true journalism will not act with any thought other than enlightening the public and being a witness to its era. 

There is absolutely no intent to commit a crime. I am a member of the press; I only did journalism." 

At the police station, Pehlivan was asked, "You stated above that the audio recording shared on the Halk TV broadcast dated January 27, 2025, which is the subject of the investigation instruction, was not taken by you. By whom was this audio recording taken?" 

Pehlivan said, "I have given many statements throughout my entire journalistic life. I have seen that people have been subjected to character assassination in the public eye as a result of such questions. Therefore, the answer I can give to this question is this: Although I did not record this phone conversation, although I did not share it, and although I did not broadcast it, I can say that the only goal of the channel management involved in this was journalism." 

At the police station, he was asked, "Give your statement regarding who or whom the audio recording shared was sent by to be broadcast live on the program in question." 

Pehlivan said, "I can answer your question as follows: As Barış Pehlivan and my other colleague Seda Selek, we do not have a say or responsibility regarding the channel's broadcast line, broadcast policy, and what will be broadcast." 

At the police station, he was asked, "You have given your answers to the questions asked above regarding the audio recording shared on the program in question. Is there any other matter you would like to add to your statement? If so, what are they?" 

Pehlivan said, "In summary, I have no involvement in the recording and sharing of this record. I only conducted an interview. I do not accept the accusation leveled against me. I request to be released." 

News Source: 12punto