09.05.2025 16:53
Halit Ergenç and Rıza Kocaoğlu appeared before the judge facing charges of "false testimony" in the Gezi Park investigation. During the identification process, Halit Ergenç stated that his monthly income was 300,000 lira. Another defendant, actor Rıza Kocaoğlu, indicated that his monthly income was 200,000 lira.
```html
The investigation regarding manager Ayşe Barım, who was arrested on the charge of 'attempting to overthrow the government of the Republic of Turkey or preventing it from performing its duties' on the grounds that she was one of the planners of the events centered around Gezi Park in Taksim, was held today at the 24th Criminal Court of First Instance in Çağlayan, Istanbul. Actors Halit Ergenç and Rıza Kocaoğlu, who testified as witnesses in the investigation, are being tried for 'false testimony' with a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. The defendants, actors Halit Ergenç, Rıza Kocaoğlu, and their lawyers attended the hearing.
During the identification process, Halit Ergenç stated that his monthly income was 300 thousand lira and began his defense.
"I DID NOT RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS" Ergenç said, "I have no crime because I did not lie. They called me for a statement regarding an investigation about Ayşe Barım. I was asked if I knew three people. They asked about Çiğdem Mater, Osman Kavala, and Mehmet Ali Alabora. I said that I knew Mehmet Ali Alabora from my conservatory years, that I rarely saw him in work environments, and that I had no familiarity with him. At that time, Mehmet Ali Alabora was the president of the Actors' Union. That’s why I had a meeting with him. There were also Gezi Park protests at that time, but our reason for the protest in Gezi Park was definitely to prevent the cutting down of trees. It was never a protest against the state or the government. Moreover, the only reason I had a phone conversation with Mehmet Ali Alabora was that the square was closed to entry at that time. I had arranged a meeting to discuss where and how we would meet with Alabora. My other meetings were also due to him being the union president. I have no private or any other meetings. It is not possible for me to receive instructions. The reason I stated that I was not sincere when first asked is also this. We gathered there not to express political views, but for environmental purposes. If the prosecutor had only asked me during the investigation phase whether I had any meetings, I would have stated it as I have expressed to you. However, since I was only asked if I knew them, I said that I had no familiarity. In my second meeting, I indeed stated my reasons for the meetings. I have never had any connection or meeting with Çiğdem Mater and Osman Kavala. I had already mentioned this in my first statement. Since I am a public figure, I cannot give a false statement. I can have phone conversations with people I have no familiarity with. I only stated my communication with Mehmet Ali Alabora and how I knew him, that’s all." he said.
MY MONTHLY INCOME IS 200 THOUSAND TL Another defendant, actor Rıza Kocaoğlu, stated that his monthly income is 200 thousand lira and used the following expressions: "When we were invited as witnesses regarding the Ayşe Barım investigation, I tried to answer the questions sincerely. I said that I knew Mehmet Ali Alabora as the union president, but that I had no contact with him. It was a very general question; 12 years had passed. Since they did not ask in detail, I described my closeness to him. Therefore, I said that I did not remember whether I met him or not. I had already stated that I had no contact before and after the Gezi Park events. I live in a neighborhood very close to Gezi Park, and the reason I was there was the cutting down of trees. Indeed, the crowd formed due to Gezi Park was very close to my house, and that’s why I participated. My phone conversation with Mehmet Ali Alabora was due to him being the union president. It is quite natural that I do not remember the conversation since I only had one very brief meeting."
THE COURT HAS BEEN ADJOURNED The court decided to send the file for the preparation of the opinion to the prosecutor's office and adjourned the hearing to Friday, May 23.
```