Ahmet Altan and Nazlı Ilıcak’s political commentary on TV and their articles cited among grounds for conviction

The criminal court that oversaw the trial of jailed novelist and journalist Ahmet Altan, his brother, columnist and professor of economics Mehmet Altan, journalist Nazlı Ilıcak, former Zaman staffers Fevzi Yazıcı and Yakup Şimşek and former Police Academy lecturer Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül issued its reasoned judgment in writing on 4 December 2019, exactly one month after the retrial concluded.

At the end of the retrial, ordered by the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the 26th High Criminal Court had acquitted Mehmet Altan but convicted Ahmet Altan and Nazlı Ilıcak of “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member,” handing down prison sentences of 10 years and 6 months and 8 years and 9 months, respectively, and ordering their release pending appeal. However, a week after the court’s release order, Ahmet Altan was rearrested at the request of the prosecutor who objected to his release.

The court had also convicted their co-defendants Yazıcı, Şimşek and Özşengül of “membership of a terrorist group,” sentencing all three to prison terms above 10 years and ordering the continuation of their detention.

At the end of the original trial, in February 2018, the trial court had sentenced all six to aggravated life imprisonment on the charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.” The indictment alleged that all defendants in the case had prior knowledge of the coup attempt in July 2016.

Commentary on TV and articles “cannot be deemed journalism”

In its 86-page reasoned judgment, the 26th High Criminal Court wrote that Ahmet Altan’s “proven acts that cannot be deemed journalistic activity were of a nature that served the objectives of the [FETÖ/PDY] organization.” The panel of judges held that Altan’s role as the founder and editor-in-chief of the now-defunct Taraf newspaper, his articles published online in the news portal haberdar.com, his articles titled “Ben buradayım benimle konuşun” (I Am Here, Speak with Me) “Mutlak korku” (Absolute fear), “Ezip geçmek” (Beating all hollow) and “Montezuma”; as well as his political commentary on Can Erzincan TV one day ahead of the attempted coup, all of which were held as evidence against him in the case file, were “of a nature that served the interests and objectives of FETÖ/PDY and constituted the crime of aiding the armed terrorist organization without being part of its hierarchical structure.”

The court wrote that the grounds for the sentence imposed on Ahmet Altan to be above the minimum sentence prescribed in law was “the intensity of malice aforethought.”

The judges also wrote that Nazlı Ilıcak’s actions could not be deemed journalistic activity. Being a long-time columnist in “media companies that supported [FETÖ/PDY]”; her 2012 book titled Her Taşın Altında “The Cemaat” mi Var? (Is ‘The Movement’ behind everything?); her political commentary during the program she co-hosted on Can Erzincan TV; as well as her Twitter posts were cited among the grounds for the sentence Ilıcak was given. The judgment said the panel granted a reduction in Ilıcak’s sentence “because she showed remorse during the course of the proceedings.”

No clear and convincing evidence against Mehmet Altan

About its ruling concerning Mehmet Altan, the court wrote that the case file “lacked fact-based grounds that could lead the panel to form the opinion that the defendant acted in line with the objectives of the armed terrorist organization FETÖ/PDY or intended to lay the groundworks for a probable military coup” and that therefore the panel ruled for his acquittal.

The court cited former Zaman staff members Fevzi Yazıcı and Yakup Şimşek’s employment with the shuttered newspaper, their savings accounts at Bank Asya, as well as their alleged “involvement” in the making of a 2015 TV commercial for Zaman, deemed to include references to an impending military coup, as the grounds for the convictions against Yazıcı and Şimşek on the charge of “membership of a terrorist group.”

As for Özşengül, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison on the same charge, the court wrote that his “commentary during a program titled ‘Özgürlük Zamanı’ (Time for freedom), aired online on the day of the attempted coup on STV, where he appeared alongside other media components of the [FETÖ] organization” was considered as evidence by the court in reaching “the conclusion and the opinion that he acted as a member of FETÖ/PDY in line with the organization’s objectives and interests.”

The full text of the reasoned judgment (in Turkish) can be accessed here.

Novelist and journalist Ahmet Altan and journalist Nazlı Ilıcak were both convicted of “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member” on 4 November 2019, at the end of the retrial of the “coup” case against them. The court ruled to release both, taking into consideration the time they spent in pre-trial detention.

Ruling in line with the prosecutor’s final opinion, the court convicted three of their co-defendants — Fevzi Yazıcı, Yakup Şimşek and Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül — of “membership in a terrorist group” and ruled for the continuation of their detention.

Mehmet Altan was acquitted and the judicial control measures imposed on him were lifted.

Altan and Ilıcak were released from the Silivri Prison and Bakırköy Women’s Prison respectively as per the court decision later in the day.

This was the second hearing in the retrial of Altans case, overseen by the 26th High Criminal Court of Istanbul, which had sentenced six defendants in the case to aggravated life imprisonment on the charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order” in February 2018, at the end of the original trial.

The retrial followed on the heels of a Supreme Court of Appeals judgment in July that overturned the aggravated life imprisonment sentences and ruled that Ahmet Altan and Ilıcak should instead be charged with “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member,” Mehmet Altan should be acquitted, and their three co-defendants should be charged with “membership in a terrorist group.” The indictment claimed that all seven defendants in the case had prior knowledge of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, which the government says was masterminded by the Fethullah Gülen network.

P24 monitored Monday’s hearing, where Nazlı Ilıcak and Mehmet Altan as well as defense lawyers were present in the courtroom. Ahmet Altan, Fevzi Yazıcı, Yakup Şimşek and Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül addressed the court via the judicial video conferencing system SEGBİS from the Silivri Prison, where they have been in detention on remand for over three years as part of this case. In addition to P24, representatives from the Swedish Consulate General in Istanbul, the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRCEW) and rights groups Article 19, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Amnesty International were among those monitoring the hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecutor reiterated his final opinion which he submitted to the court last week. In his final opinion, the prosecutor asked the court to acquit journalist and Professor of Economics Mehmet Altan but convict his brother, Ahmet Altan, journalist Nazlı Ilıcak, former Zaman staffers Fevzi Yazıcı and Yakup Şimşek, and former Police Academy lecturer and political commentator Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül of terrorism-related charges. The prosecutor requested the continuation of the detention of all five jailed defendants and sought sentences above the minimum prison term prescribed by the law for all five.

Lawyer representing Parliament files motion seeking life imprisonment

Ahead of Monday’s hearing, the lawyer representing the Parliament, which is a co-plaintiff in the case, filed a motion seeking the reversal of the court’s decision to comply with the Supreme Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the “coup” convictions. The motion requested that the court insist on its verdict in the original trial and sentence all six defendants, including Mehmet Altan, to aggravated life imprisonment.

Ilıcak: The principle of equal treatment is being violated

The court heard Ilıcak’s defense statement first. Asserting that the prosecutor’s final opinion made the same allegations as the ones in the original trial, Ilıcak explained that she wrote columns for Bugün newspaper, not “Özgür Bugün,” which never existed.

She said the accusation “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member” was specifically formulated to be leveled against journalists. Ilıcak reminded the court that the Supreme Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the convictions in their case was “not a verdict that convicted me of knowingly aiding a terrorist group, but a ruling that told the court to review the case from this vantage point.”

Adding that some of the allegations against her were similar to those against her co-defendant Mehmet Altan, Ilıcak said: “The prosecutor is seeking Mehmet Altan’s acquittal but is asking the court to punish me over the same TV program. This amounts to a violation of the principle of equal treatment.”

The presiding judge then interrupted Ilıcak, asking her to deliver her statement more rapidly.

Continuing with her statement afterwards, Ilıcak defended her social media posts that are held as evidence against her. She said that when taken into consideration as a whole, her Twitter posts proved that she was against the coup. The presiding judge then interrupted Ilıcak for a second time, asking her to wrap up her statement.

As she concluded her statement, Ilıcak asserted that she “did not knowingly and willingly aid a terrorist organization” and asked to be acquitted and released.

Özşengül: Allegations amount to slander

Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül addressed the court next. Asserting in his statement that there was not substantial evidence against the defendants in the case file, Özşengül said the articles he wrote did not include any remarks that supported, praised or defended the Gülen network. He said his columns were an exercising of the right to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the Constitution.

Asserting that the court convicted him at the end of the original trial based on the indictment against him, as if he never made a defense statement, Özşengül said: “A conviction requires clear and convincing proof of criminal activity. The allegations against me in the case file that do not even constitute reasonable doubt amount to slander.

“The prosecutor claims in his final opinion that we ‘operated under the disguise of journalism.’ I spent 34 years with the Police Academy. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a lecturer,” he added.

Rejecting the accusations against him, Özşengül requested to be acquitted.

Yazıcı and Şimşek: Lawful employment held as evidence against us

In the afternoon session, the court first heard Zaman’s former design chief Fevzi Yazıcı’s defense statement. Yazıcı said he only saw his lawyer once after the prosecutor submitted his final opinion and asked the court to grant him additional time for his defense statement. The presiding judge rejected Yazıcı’s request, saying that none of the defendants was granted additional time. Asserting that the “membership in a terrorist group” charge in the Supreme Court of Appeals ruling was based on his lawful employment at Zaman, Yazıcı said this was not a crime and asked to be acquitted.

Şimşek, the former brand manager of Zaman, also told the court at the beginning of his statement that he did not know before the hearing that this was going to be his final defense statement. “I was going to ask for additional time to prepare my final statement in response to the prosecutor’s opinion, which I could only see on Friday,” Şimşek said. Asserting that his employment with Zaman was being held as evidence against him, Şimşek rejected the accusations and asked to be acquitted and released.

Ahmet Altan: The prosecutor is incriminating himself in his final opinion

Ahmet Altan addressed the court next. Saying that the prosecutor’s final opinion was a three-page long document full of contradictions and lies, Altan said the prosecutor was actually incriminating himself with this document.

“The prosecutor claims in his final opinion that I ‘said the coup of 15 July would take place.’ This is a lie. I never made such a remark and there is no evidence supporting this allegation,” Altan said.

He continued: “But the sentence that follows in the final opinion constitutes the basis of the prosecutor’s confession to his crime. The prosecutor says: ‘It is not possible to have prior knowledge of the coup attempt without acting in unison with the terrorist group.’ So according to the prosecutor, in order to have prior knowledge of the coup, this person must be acting in unison with the putschists. But then the prosecutor mentions ‘articles written during a period when the likelihood of a coup was deemed relatively high.’ So he is saying that there was a strong likelihood of a coup ahead of 15 July 2016. And the prosecutor was aware of this likelihood. But since the prosecutor argued that it was ‘not possible to have prior knowledge of the coup attempt without acting in unison with terrorists,’ then I would like to ask the prosecutor which putschists did he act in unison to find out about the likelihood of a coup.

“I stand behind everything that I have said and written up until now. If your goal is to keep me in prison, you can do that for as long as you want. I am not afraid of prison. I’d rather spend the rest of my life in prison than fear such a government. As long as this government keeps me in prison on these justifications, the ones who keep me in prison also become smaller. And no one has the power to change this equation.

“The law has such magnificent power and it is because it strengthens and enlarges all who hold on to it. I do not move away from the law and honesty, and I suggest everyone else to do the same,” Ahmet Altan concluded his statement.

The full text of Ahmet Altan’s statement (in Turkish) can be accessed here.

 

Mehmet Altan: Prosecutor’s final opinion reiterates nullified allegations

Mehmet Altan, who was released from pre-trial detention in June 2018 based on the Constitutional Court’s judgment concerning his individual application, was the last defendant to address the court.

Pointing out that the prosecutor’s final opinion reiterated the allegations in the initial indictment, Altan said those allegations were nullified as a result of judgments by the Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals.

“Because the indictment repeated in the prosecutor’s final opinion is not a lawful indictment, my constitutional rights were found to be violated and the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled for my acquittal,” Altan said.

“Throughout this trial, I have witnessed the existence of a will that seeks to disregard the constitutional order, trying to achieve this goal within the state. The primary target of this mob has always been the Constitution. Very dangerously they attempted to disregard the Constitution.

“I am still suffering from my unlawful detention as part of this case even though I was paid compensation [which was ordered by the Constitutional Court]. This has to be remedied according to both the Constitution and Supreme Court of Appeals case-law,” Altan said as he concluded his statement, requesting to be acquitted as per the Supreme Court ruling.

The full text of Mehmet Altan’s statement (in Turkish) can be accessed here. 

After Mehmet Altan completed his statement, the court went on to hear defense lawyers.

Ahmet Altan’s lawyer Figen Albuga Çalıkuşu and Nazlı Ilıcak’s lawyer Kemal Ertuğ Derin told the court that their clients should be acquitted based on the amendments introduced in the Law on the Fight against Terrorism (TMK) with last month’s Judicial Reform Package. All defense lawyers requested the court to acquit their clients.

Verdict 

Following the completion of defense lawyers’ closing arguments, the panel said they would take a 20-minute recess for deliberation. The bailiff then announced that the recess was “open-ended” and that the panel would not be announcing their verdict until after 7 p.m.

The panel returned to the courtroom at 7:45 p.m. Announcing their verdict, the court acquitted Mehmet Altan and lifted all judicial control measures imposed on him. The court sentenced Ahmet Altan to 10 years and 6 months in prison and Ilıcak to 8 years and 9 months on the charge of “aiding a terrorist group without being its member” and ruled to release both, taking into account the time they spent in pretrial detention. The court imposed an international travel ban on both Altan and Ilıcak.

Their co-defendants Fevzi Yazıcı and Yakup Şimşek were each sentenced to 11 years and 3 months in prison and Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül was given a prison sentence of 12 years on the charge of “membership in a terrorist group.” The court ruled to keep all three behind bars.

Office of the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals says Altan brothers and Ilıcak should have been charged with “aiding a terrorist group without being its member”

The Office of the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals has requested the reversal of the appellate court’s verdict in the case against jailed novelist and journalist Ahmet Altan, his brother, professor of economics and longtime newspaper columnist Mehmet Altan, veteran journalist Nazlı Ilıcak, and their three co-defendants.

In February 2018, the 26th High Criminal Court of Istanbul had sentenced the Altans, Ilıcak and three of their co-defendants to aggravated life imprisonment for “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order” as per Article 309 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK). The indictment claimed that the defendants in the case “had prior knowledge of the coup attempt of July 2016,” which the government claims to have been carried out by the religious movement led by Fethullah Gülen.

In October, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, the appellate court overseeing the case, upheld the trial court’s verdict. The defense lawyers then appealed the appellate court’s decision before the Supreme Court of Appeals.

The Office of the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals said in their judicial opinion concerning the appeal that the Altan brothers and Ilıcak should have been charged with “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member,” instead of the much serious charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.”

The judicial opinion asserted that “force and violence” were the essential elements of the charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order” as described in TCK 309, adding that the concepts of “immaterial force” or “threat” were unacceptable in proving this charge in respect of the principle of legality.

Adding that the alleged acts committed by the defendants did not amount to “physical force and violence,” the judicial opinion went on to say that the verdict was based on “a broad assumption” and lacked specifics as to “when the alleged offense began to be committed; which offense the defendants participated in; or in what way they used force and violence.” 

The judicial opinion said the court’s presumption that the defendants had committed the alleged offense “jointly and directly” was “erroneous and lacking legal and sufficient grounds.”

The Office of the General Prosecutor submitted their judicial opinion to the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals on 8 January.

The judicial opinion (in Turkish) by the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals can be seen here.

In the event the Chamber rules in line with the Office of the General Prosecutor’s judicial opinion, the case file against the Altan brothers and Ilıcak will return to the trial court for retrial, this time on the charge of “aiding a terrorist group.”

The Office of the General Prosecutor also said in their judicial opinion that the Altans’ three co-defendants — Fevzi Yazıcı, the chief page designer of the shuttered daily Zaman, Yakup Şimşek, the newspaper’s marketing director, and former Police Academy lecturer Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül — should have been charged with “membership in a terrorist group.”

The judicial opinion seeks that the Supreme Court of Appeals uphold the verdict concerning Tibet Murat Sanlıman, the seventh defendant in the case, who was acquitted of the charges by the trial court.

In the event the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals upholds the appellate court verdict, the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals can still object to the verdict, in which case the file will be reviewed by the Assembly of Criminal Law Chambers.

Of the six defendants, Mehmet Altan was released in June by a decision of the appellate court when the court first took up the case. The other defendants remain imprisoned, for well over two years now. Source