- The expert witness Satılmış Büyükcanayakın, who filed the complaint against the journalists, has not appeared in court for the past four hearings; law enforcement cannot find him at his address, no one at the address knows him, and he cannot be reached.
- Although the phone call at the center of the charges was made with this expert witness, the trial has effectively come to a standstill because the most critical witness cannot be heard. Due to the complainant's absence, the case has been ongoing for a year.
Semra Pelek
The absence of the complainant for four consecutive hearings in the trial of journalists Barış Pehlivan, Seda Selek, Serhan Asker, Suat Toktaş, and Kürşad Oğuz — who are being prosecuted for publishing a phone conversation with expert witness Satılmış Büyükcanayakın, whose name was publicly disclosed by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu — has sparked serious debates over the right to a fair trial.
The journalists are being tried at the Istanbul 54th Criminal Court of First Instance on charges of “recording non-public conversations between individuals” and “publishing the recorded conversation through the press,” due to the release of a phone conversation held directly with Satılmış Büyükcanayakın — the very conversation at the heart of the accusations.
All the core elements affecting the essence of the case — such as whether a crime occurred, whether the conversation was recorded without consent, and whether the complainant intended to speak to the press — hinge directly on the testimony of the complainant. Nevertheless, Büyükcanayakın has not attended a single hearing to date.
The court had previously made it clear that a verdict could not be reached without hearing from the complainant. However, because he has not attended the hearings, the trial has not been concluded for approximately one year.
Not found at his address, could not be reached
After a court order issued on July 3, 2025, for his compulsory appearance, law enforcement visited the address listed in the case file multiple times before and on the day of the hearing. But during these visits, no one could be reached. Searches conducted in the surrounding area also failed to identify anyone who knew Büyükcanayakın or could provide information about him.
Law enforcement also checked national databases for updated address and contact information for the complainant; however, no other residential address or registered phone number belonging to him could be found beyond the one in the file. As a result, the complainant could not be physically brought to court, and the order for compulsory appearance could not be carried out.
Following this, the court again ordered that the complainant be brought in by force and reminded law enforcement units that compulsory appearance does not merely mean notifying someone by phone, but that Satılmış Büyükcanayakın must be physically present at the court at the specified date and time.
Prolonged trial turns travel ban into de facto punishment
Because the complainant has not appeared in court and the case has not been resolved for a year, the accused journalists have suffered serious consequences. A travel ban has remained in effect throughout this period. The defendants have repeatedly stated that, due to this judicial control, they have been unable to see their children living abroad, unable to travel overseas for interviews or news coverage, and that the restriction has effectively turned into a punishment.
At the most recent hearing, the court decided to lift the travel ban on the grounds that the judicial control had served its intended purpose.
What does the complainant's absence from the hearings mean?
How the court rules in this case hinges on Satılmış Büyükcanayakın’s responses to questions about the phone conversation. His answers to questions like “Were you called by a journalist?”, “Did you know you were speaking to the press?”, and “Did you consent to being recorded?” will determine the outcome of the case. But since the person who should answer these questions has not shown up in court, the court is unable to deliberate on these key points.
This brings about several fundamental consequences:
-
Journalists cannot defend themselves: The defendants have the right to directly question the person who filed the complaint against them. Questions such as “Why did you go to the prosecutor the next day?” or “Didn’t you know you were talking to the press?” can only be asked in a courtroom setting. Without the complainant present, this confrontation cannot occur, and the defense remains only on paper.
-
The trial proceeds one-sidedly: The prosecution can rely on written statements obtained during the investigation phase. But the defense has no opportunity to challenge these statements. As a result, instead of a genuine courtroom debate, the process becomes a one-sided proceeding based solely on the file.
-
Judge is left bound to the file: Since the complainant has not been heard, the judge cannot listen to the person at the heart of the matter. In criminal trials, the judge is supposed to form an opinion based on evidence discussed in court. If the complainant is never heard, there is a risk that the judge will have to rule solely based on documents from the prosecution.
-
No trial within a reasonable time: Because the complainant cannot be brought to court, the case is being prolonged. This results in the defendants being subjected to months of legal uncertainty and judicial control measures, raising concerns about their right to be tried within a reasonable time.
