The first hearing was held in the trial of 45 people accused of protesting the 36th NATO Summit in Ankara, including Halkevleri Chair Linda Sevinç Hocaoğulları and the Ankara provincial chairs of the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TİP), the Labor Party (EMEP) and the Laborist Movement Party (EHP). In their defense statements, the defendants said they had exercised their constitutional rights and participated in a peaceful demonstration, calling for their acquittal.
Büşra Genel
The first hearing in the trial of 45 people accused of participating in protests against the 36th NATO Summit in Ankara was held at the Ankara 46th Criminal Court of First Instance. The defendants, including Halkevleri Chair Linda Sevinç Hocaoğulları and the Ankara provincial chairs of three left-wing political parties, said they had exercised their constitutional right to peaceful protest and called for their acquittal.
The 45 defendants face charges of "participating unarmed in an unlawful assembly or demonstration and refusing to disperse despite warnings" over their involvement in protests against the NATO summit, held on July 7-8, 2026.
Several defendants attended the hearing, including Hocaoğulları, Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP) Ankara Provincial Chair Fırat Çoban, Labor Party (EMEP) Ankara Provincial Chair Rüstem Kahraman and Labor Movement Party (EHP) Ankara Provincial Chair Öykü Ilgın Gürses, along with their lawyers.
The court rejected a request from defense lawyers to record the proceedings using SEGBİS, Turkey's judicial audio and video recording system.
Çoban, the first defendant to deliver his defense statement, criticized NATO's history and said the protesters had taken to the streets to oppose what they viewed as crimes committed by the military alliance.
"Those who want to know NATO's history should ask those who were massacred in Baghdad and Palestine. NATO's history is written in blood and lawlessness," Çoban said.
"We took to the streets on July 7 not to commit a crime, but to object to crimes being committed. We exercised our constitutional rights. Police officers intervened in our march without issuing any warning. We took to the streets on July 7 to prevent a crime. The people of this country will not surrender to imperialists. I demand my acquittal because all we did was exercise our constitutional rights."
Hocaoğulları, chair of Halkevleri, a left-wing grassroots organization also known as People's Houses, similarly defended the protest as an exercise of democratic rights.
"We exercised our democratic right to say no to NATO. If those committing murders in many parts of the world come to this country, we have the right to object. We took to the streets to say no to imperialists and their collaborators. For us, this is a responsibility and a duty," Hocaoğulları said.
Arguing that the indictment contained no concrete evidence of a crime, Hocaoğulları added:
"You have no real indictment, and the police investigation report contains no criminal allegation. Yet we are on trial because a state that protects war crimes has chosen to prosecute those who object to them."
Other defendants who spoke at the hearing endorsed the earlier defense statements, saying they had exercised their constitutional rights and had been subjected to torture by police officers as a result. They also requested acquittal.
Following the defendants' statements, Hocaoğulları's lawyer, Mert Ekinci, argued that those on trial had merely sought to exercise their right to peaceful and democratic protest.
"The official incident report states that attempting to block a road during the demonstration constituted a crime. Roads may be blocked during a peaceful demonstration. But it was not the defendants who blocked the roads; it was the Ankara Governor's Office," Ekinci said.
"The Ankara Governor's Office closed roads in Ankara for a certain period as part of the NATO Summit. Peaceful demonstration is a constitutional right, and we therefore request the defendants' acquittal."
Another defense lawyer, Eren Gönen, said a lawsuit had been filed seeking the annulment of the Ankara Governor's Office ban on assemblies and demonstrations, arguing that the ban was unlawful.
"The defendants exercised their constitutional rights and defended their country. We therefore request their acquittal," Gönen said.
After hearing the defense statements, the court adjourned the proceedings until 10 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2027, to allow outstanding procedural matters to be completed.
Background to the case
The case stems from a protest organized by the No to NATO Coordination against the 36th NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026.
The coalition had planned to hold a press statement at Kurtuluş Park in central Ankara, but police officers prevented the gathering from taking place. Numerous people were detained following the police intervention.
The protesters were subsequently released, but the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation and filed charges against 45 people for allegedly "participating unarmed in an unlawful assembly or demonstration and refusing to disperse despite warnings."
Those prosecuted include Halkevleri Chair Linda Sevinç Hocaoğulları, TİP Ankara Provincial Chair Fırat Çoban, EMEP Ankara Provincial Chair Rüstem Kahraman and EHP Ankara Provincial Chair Öykü Ilgın Gürses.
According to the indictment prepared by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the Ankara Governor's Office issued a decision on June 22, 2026, banning indoor and outdoor assemblies, marches, press statements, protests and similar activities across the province between June 28 and July 10.
The indictment said law enforcement authorities had taken the necessary measures to enforce the ban.
It further alleged that the protesters had violated the restrictions by holding an unauthorized demonstration and refusing to comply with police orders to disperse.
"It is understood that the suspects, who staged an unlawful demonstration and failed to disperse despite warnings from law enforcement officers, committed the offense of 'participating unarmed in an unlawful assembly or demonstration and refusing to disperse despite warnings,'" the indictment stated.
"On behalf of the public, it is therefore requested that the suspects be tried in open court and punished in accordance with the relevant legal provisions."
