Retired Admiral Türker Ertürk appeared before a judge at the first hearing of the case brought against him on charges of “threatening with the aim of creating fear and panic among the public through the press and broadcasting” over remarks he made on a television program three years ago. Ertürk participated in the hearing from prison via SEGBİS at the Bakırköy 5th Criminal Court of First Instance, while all four of his lawyers were also present. Ertürk denied the charges and requested his release and acquittal; the court ruled that his detention should continue.
The indictment stated that, during a broadcast ahead of the 2023 Presidential elections, he said a change in government would be “painful but painless,” said that the Supreme Election Council should make its decision in accordance with the law and conscience, and expressed that problems could arise otherwise. Ertürk argued that the footage had been taken from two programs broadcast 9 years and 3.5 years earlier, taken out of context, cut and edited together. Stating that his remarks were political assessments and predictions, Ertürk said that no concrete threat had been made and no fear had been created.
Why it matters
The central issue in the case is whether political assessments made during a television broadcast can be considered a concrete threat intended to create fear and panic among the public. The defense’s emphasis on its claim that the footage was taken from programs broadcast on different dates and edited together requires the court to assess not only the content of the remarks but also the context of the broadcast and the way they were conveyed. In this respect, the case shows how the boundary between political prediction and criminal liability is addressed in a specific case. While the continuation of Ertürk’s detention shows that the requests for acquittal and release have not yet been granted, the fundamental unresolved question is whether the remarks, considered in context, meet the elements of the offense of making a threat.