Decision to Continue Detention at the Fatih Altaylı Hearing: Defenses, Requests and Interim Rulings

On 03.10.2025, the Fatih Altaylı hearing became a session closely followed by the public, both in terms of discussions on the offense of threat in criminal proceedings and the application of the detention measure. At the hearing, the defendant’s defense, the legal objections of defense counsel, the statements of the complainant’s counsel, and the prosecution’s requests for interim rulings were evaluated before the court.

At the end of the hearing, the court ordered that Fatih Altaylı’s detention pending trial continue, accepted the President’s request to join the proceedings, and adjourned the trial to a later date. In this article, we systematically address the statements that came to the fore at the hearing and the legal significance of the interim rulings, within the framework of the information conveyed in the thread.

First Stage in the Courtroom: Attendance, Courtroom Order and Opening

Before the hearing began, the fullness of the courtroom and audience attendance drew attention. Publicly known figures such as Celal Şengör, Murat Bardakçı, İsmail Saymaz, Ruşen Çakır, Timur Soykan, Barış Terkoğlu, Barış Pehlivan, Şule Aydın and Faruk Süren were present in the courtroom to observe the hearing.

After the panel of judges took their seats, Erinç Sağkan requested before the hearing that those left outside be admitted if there was suitable space in the courtroom. The presiding judge rejected this request, stating that the courtroom was full.

After Fatih Altaylı was brought to the defendant’s stand, the hearing began as of 10:56. At the first stage, identity verification was carried out, and Altaylı then proceeded with his defense.

Main Framework of Fatih Altaylı’s Defense

Fatih Altaylı began his defense by addressing the journalists and observers in the courtroom. According to the account, he stated that while being brought to the courtroom, he had seen grass and a wide sky for the first time in a long while.

At the center of his defense were the reasons for his journalistic activities and how he positioned himself. Altaylı stated that he wanted children from different segments of Turkey to have equal conditions, and that this was why he made programs, spoke and explained.

In this context, he said that he felt a debt to the country and that this country had raised him. He also stated that they earned income, but used part of it as scholarships, and that he thought of the future of the young people who received scholarships as he did his own child’s future.

Another prominent point in Altaylı’s defense was the characterization directed at him as an opposition journalist. He defined himself not in that way, but as a journalist who criticizes:

They call me an opposition journalist; I am a journalist who criticizes.

Through this distinction, he stated that being in opposition may involve an aim of replacing the government, whereas he had no such aim and wanted the country to be better.

Defense Against the Allegation of the Offense of Threat: Is Recounting the Past a Threat?

The main legal axis of the hearing concerned whether Altaylı’s words constituted the offense of threat. Altaylı stated that he had never threatened anyone in his life, and that when he himself had been threatened in the past, he had given President Erdoğan airtime.

In his defense, he argued that there was no question of him threatening an elected person. He particularly emphasized that giving an example from the past could not be characterized as a threat:

How can recounting the past be a threat? In that case, all history books are threats.

Altaylı said that when the panel of judges watched the 2.5-minute video in question, they would see that it contained no threatening content. He concluded his defense by stating that if he had committed any wrongdoing, it was against his mother, his wife and his daughter; on the contrary, he said that he spoke so that the future of young people would not be under threat.

Statement of the Complainant’s Counsel: Request to Join the Proceedings and Debate on the Legal Characterization of the Offense

Following the defense, President Erdoğan’s lawyer made a statement in the capacity of counsel for the complainant. The complainant’s counsel argued that Altaylı’s words constituted the offense of threat.

In addition, because the complainant is the President, he argued that the act should be punished under Article 306 of the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu, TCK). Following this statement, Fatih Altaylı was given the floor regarding the request to join the proceedings.

Altaylı stated that the complainant’s counsel had skipped the beginning of the speech. Although he said that he considered the President to have the status of victim, he stated that he did not think Erdoğan had heard these words. Even if he had heard them, Altaylı stated that he did not think the President would fear that he would harm his bodily integrity.

At this point, Altaylı again brought up the analogy of the history book in his defense and evaluated that if accounts concerning the past were to be deemed threats, then reading history should also create a similar fear.

Objections of Defense Counsel: Elements of the Offense and Emphasis on Specific Intent

Fatih Altaylı’s defense counsel made arguments to the effect that the alleged act did not constitute an offense and that the conditions for the detention measure were not present.

First, defense counsel Rezzan Aydınoğlu stated that her client was being tried for an act that was not a crime. According to Aydınoğlu, the elements of the offense had not materialized in the concrete case; there was no punishable act.

Aydınoğlu argued that Altaylı had given an example from history, but that this did not mean it had to happen, or would happen, today as well. She stated that the offense of threat is an offense committed with specific intent and that it must have a counterpart in the external world.

She also stated that she did not think the President was frightened by Altaylı’s words. In this context, referring to the speech the President had recently delivered at the United Nations General Assembly, she argued that such fear would not be consistent with the ordinary course of life.

Debate on the Offense of Threat Under Article 106 of the TCK

Defense counsel Attorney Ömer Teker also argued that the file involved an impossible offense. Teker stated that for the offense of threat to occur under Article 106 of the TCK, the complainant must be frightened or the act must be capable of causing fear.

The defense stated that they had submitted an expert opinion to the file and that this opinion indicated that the words carried an emphasis on democracy and that the elements of the offense had not been established. According to the information conveyed in the thread, this assessment appeared on page 37 of the opinion.

Teker stated that the only evidence within the scope of the file was the video recording and that this recording was included in the file. He also stated that his client did not present a flight risk and requested both release and acquittal.

Statement of Erinç Sağkan: Presumption of Innocence and the Detention Measure

Erinç Sağkan, who took the floor at the hearing, stated that Fatih Altaylı had been summoned to the courthouse many times before and had gone and given statements each time he was summoned. This emphasis was important in terms of the debate on flight risk.

Sağkan stated that, in the incident, there was first a process of targeting, and that approximately 9 hours later a custody order was issued. He also argued that the statement of the Directorate of Communications was contrary to the presumption of innocence.

Describing this process with the analogy of the first button being fastened incorrectly, he stated that the file had reached this point due to a mistaken beginning. According to Sağkan, the detention measure had not contributed anything to the file.

Sağkan also stated that the offense of threat is an offense that may be committed on the basis that an unlawful act will be carried out in the future. Assessing that it was not possible for this offense to be committed against the President, he stated that the conditions for becoming President are set out in the Constitution.

The Prosecution’s Opinion and the Court’s Interim Rulings

The public prosecutor at the hearing expressed the opinion that the President’s request to join the proceedings should be accepted. The prosecutor also requested that Fatih Altaylı’s detention pending trial continue.

The prosecution requested time to submit its opinion on the merits and asked for the hearing to be adjourned to a later date. Following this opinion, the hearing was recessed for 15 minutes. After the courtroom was emptied, the parties returned to the courtroom for the announcement of the interim rulings.

The interim rulings announced by the court were as follows:

What Does This Mean in Practice?

This hearing stood out as an example in which issues such as freedom of expression, the offense of threat, the request to join proceedings, and the detention measure were discussed in the same file in criminal proceedings. No final decision on the merits has yet been rendered; at this stage, the court has ruled through interim rulings that the proceedings will continue.

The prominent legal outcomes may be summarized as follows:

• By accepting the President’s request to join the proceedings, the court paved the way for the complainant side to continue in the proceedings in the capacity of a participating party.
• The defense argued that the words did not constitute a threat; in particular, that the elements of capability to cause fear and specific intent were absent in terms of Article 106 of the TCK.
• Defense counsel stated that the main evidence in the file was the video recording and that there was no flight risk, and requested release and acquittal.
• The prosecution requested the continuation of detention and time to submit its opinion on the merits.
• The court ordered that Fatih Altaylı’s detention pending trial continue and adjourned the hearing to 26.11.2025 at 10:00.