Meydan TV trial: 'Journalists arrested, but not those behind financial dealings'
Meydan TV trial resumes
The first hearing in the Meydan TV case under a newly appointed panel of judges and a new state prosecutor took place in Azerbaijan after a three-month hiatus.
The hearing was held on 3 July at the Baku Court for Grave Crimes and was presided over by Zaur Hajiyev. The judicial panel also included Azer Tagiyev and Roman Alekberli. State prosecutor Ergin Gafarov was replaced by Vusal Abdullayev.
Although the hearing began with the verification of the defendants’ personal details, the defendants objected, noting that this had already been completed at the previous hearing. The court accepted the objection and skipped this stage.
On 6 December 2024, Meydan TV staff members Ramin Deko (Jabrayilzade), Aynur Ganbarova (Elgunesh), Aysel Umudova, Aytaj Ahmadova (Tapdig), Khayala Aghayeva and Natig Javadli were detained. They were charged under Article 206.3.2 of the Criminal Code (smuggling committed by a group of people acting in prior collusion), in what became known as the “Meydan TV case”. Journalists Shamshad Agha, Nurlan Libre, Fatima Movlamli, Ulviya Ali and Ahmad Mukhtar were later also arrested in connection with the case.
In August this year, the charges against the journalists were expanded, with additional criminal counts added to the case.
Meydan TV says the arrests are linked to the outlet’s critical journalism.
When asked whether they wished to challenge the state prosecutor, journalist Aytaj Tapdig said she did.
“I object to the new state prosecutor. I understand why the judges were replaced – they weren’t coping. But the prosecutor was doing his job, he was reading out the indictment. Why was he replaced? I demand that the previous prosecutor, Ergin Gafarov, be brought back.”
Khayala Aghayeva also objected to the change of prosecutor.
“The previous prosecutor was strong, he had a good aura. Whatever was said in court, he laughed. He must be brought back.”
Aynur Elgunesh and the other defendants also challenged the new state prosecutor. The hearing was adjourned to allow them to submit their objections in writing. As the judges and the prosecutor were leaving the courtroom, the journalists shouted to the prosecutor: “Leave and don’t come back.” State prosecutor Vusal Abdullayev replied: “I’ll be back.”
After deliberation, the court rejected the challenge.
Lawyers for Rovshan Rahimli requested that the defendants be removed from the glass dock and allowed to sit beside their legal representatives.
“It’s July and the dock is stifling. Besides, the distance between us prevents us from consulting effectively. The previous panel allowed this,” one lawyer said.
The court granted the request.
Addressing the court, Shamshad Agha argued that procedural steps should not be repeated.
“The previous state prosecutor, Ergin Gafarov, already read out the indictment. That took three or four hearings. It should not be read out again. We were not notified that the panel of judges had changed. We should have been, because the law requires it.
Of these judges, I only know Azer Tagiyev. He is well acquainted with politically sensitive cases. He has long presided over the Toplum TV case, in which I was questioned as a witness. That case has been unlawful from the outset. The only person who has remained the same is the representative of the State Tax Service. He’s still just a kid, sitting here. These procedures should not be repeated, because there is no real trial here anyway.”
Ramin Deko asked what had happened to a motion granted by the previous panel.
“On 3 April, the previous panel granted my request to obtain CCTV footage from the airport. If those recordings are produced, they will show I had €8,000 with me, not €38,000. Three months have passed, the footage still hasn’t been submitted, and I remain unlawfully detained. If you can’t get it, I’ll go to the airport myself and bring it.”
The presiding judge said the court had not yet received any materials from the airport but that the request would be sent again.
Defence seeks house arrest for defendants
Lawyer Zibeyda Sadiqova asked the court to replace pre-trial detention with house arrest for her clients.
“All 12 defendants are charged with smuggling. Aynur Elgunesh has serious health problems and has undergone 17 operations. Natig Javadli supports a young child and his ill mother. Shamshad Agha also has young children. Since his detention, three members of his family and close relatives have died. Fatima Movlamli is a young woman who has been arrested because of her journalism.
During the year-long investigation, the court rejected these motions. But now our courts have established a very positive practice. Defendants in a gold smuggling case were transferred to house arrest. Ruslan Eyubov, who is accused of smuggling goods worth five million manats, was also placed under house arrest. Five million manats. Let’s apply this excellent judicial practice here as well.“
Lawyer Javad Javadov also requested that his clients, Aytaj Tapdig and Nurlan Libre, be transferred to house arrest.
Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, representing Ulvi Tahirov, likewise asked the court to place his client under house arrest. He also requested that the Meydan TV case and the Baku School of Journalism (BJM) case be separated into different proceedings.
Lawyer Rashad Aliyev requested house arrest for his client, Ahmad Mukhtar, citing his family circumstances.
“Ahmad Mukhtar has a permanent residence in Baku. His mother and wife are both currently undergoing treatment for cancer. He has previously received prestigious awards. Moreover, there are no legal grounds to suggest that placing him under house arrest would pose any risk.“
Lawyer Nazim Musayev told the court that his client, Khayala Aghayeva, did not understand the substance of the charges against her.
“We have raised this issue before. Khayala Aghayeva has not been properly informed of the substance of the charges, and it is impossible to understand from the indictment what exactly she is accused of. As far as we can tell, she is being accused of cooperating with Meydan TV. There are no procedural grounds for keeping her in pre-trial detention.
“Moreover, during the search of her home, investigators seized a camera, memory cards and a microphone she used for filming. In other words, nothing that could be considered smuggled goods was found. Therefore, there are no material grounds for her continued detention either.”
Lawyer Azer Rasulov also asked the court to place his client, Fatima Movlamli, under house arrest.
“There are no grounds for merging the Meydan TV and BJM cases. The prosecution’s case is largely built around BJM, yet the people involved in the NGO’s financial transactions are only being treated as witnesses. Fatima Movlamli was not involved in any BJM activities.“
A representative of the State Tax Service did not object to the motions and left the decision to the court.
The court rejected the requests.
Defendants say they are being denied medical treatment
Lawyer for Rovshan Rahimli requested that her client, journalist Ulviya Ali, be allowed to undergo the medical examinations she needs.
“My client has a pituitary microadenoma. She also suffers from insulin resistance. We filed a similar motion in February. The court granted it and sent a request. However, the Penitentiary Service’s medical facility does not have MRI or CT scanners, so we ask that she be allowed to undergo the examinations at a private clinic at our own expense.”
Ulviya Ali said similar requests had been submitted in May last year and again in February this year, but none had been acted upon. She said she was being deprived of her right to adequate medical care.
Lawyer Javad Javadov also said his client, Aytaj Tapdig, had been unable to receive treatment because of her health condition.
“On 19 June, we submitted a written request asking for my client to be examined by an ENT specialist. She suffers from shortness of breath due to a deviated nasal septum. We also requested MRI and CT scans. However, we have received no response to our requests for the necessary medical care.”
Aytaj Tapdig said she had received an oral response from the chief doctor at the detention centre where she is being held.
“I was told that the Penitentiary Service does not have an ENT specialist and that I will not receive treatment.”
During her remarks, Aytaj Tapdig said she had another motion to submit.
“I’d like to introduce the new panel of judges to the Meydan TV team, although it’s not entirely new. Among the judges is Azer Tagiyev, who is currently preparing to hand our colleagues unfair long prison sentences.
For some reason, our trial is starting again after six months. Perhaps you’d be interested to learn what truths this independent media outlet has been reporting for the past 13 years. Who are the people working at Meydan TV, and why have they ended up in prison? I therefore ask the court to grant my motion: at the next hearing, we will bring a short film about Meydan TV and watch it together in the courtroom, along with the cameras of the Presidential Administration that are monitoring us.“
The court rejected the motion.
Responding to the requests concerning the defendants’ medical examinations, the state prosecutor argued that the issue fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. He said the defendants could only address such requests to the facility where they were being held.
Lawyer for Rovshan Rahimli disagreed.
“Requests to allow defendants to receive medical treatment during court proceedings have long been established practice. That may come as news to some people, but this has always been the case. Courts have routinely issued permission or the necessary letters enabling defendants to receive treatment.“
The representative of the State Tax Service did not object to the request and left the matter to the court’s discretion.
In its ruling, the court said the defendants should apply to the relevant authorities.
Aytaj Tapdig objected, saying the ruling did not provide a clear answer.
“We submitted a request on 19 June to the authority that the court considers competent, and we still have not received a written reply. We were only told orally that it was not possible.”
The presiding judge said that the necessary examinations could be arranged through the Main Medical Directorate.
“If they do not have the diagnostic equipment you need, you can undergo the examinations at a private clinic at your own expense.“
Lawyer for Rovshan Rahimli responded that the Penitentiary Service required the court’s permission for this.
The judge reiterated that the court had no such authority and could only send a letter to the detention centre stating that it had no objection to the examinations being carried out. The lawyer then asked the court to send such a letter, and the judge replied that the matter would be addressed in due course.
Court building ‘not accessible for people with disabilities’
Ramin Deko asked the court to allow journalists to film the proceedings, but the request was rejected.
Lawyer Zibeyda Sadiqova then asked the court to resolve a months-long issue concerning the notarisation of a power of attorney for the family members of her client, Natig Javadli. The presiding judge said the court would try to resolve the matter.
Sadiqova also raised concerns about the lack of an accessible toilet in the courthouse. She said her client, Aynur Elgunesh, had undergone leg surgery and was unable to use a squat toilet.
“As a result, my client cannot use the toilet while she is in the courthouse. The defendants are brought here and then have to wait before the hearing begins. The hearings themselves last several hours, followed by the long journey back to the detention centre. We raised this issue at previous hearings as well. A portable accessible toilet seat costs just 50-60 manats (around $30-35). My client is prepared to pay for it herself.“
The presiding judge said the court would try to resolve the issue before the next hearing.
Lawyer for Rovshan Rahimli also asked to be allowed to meet four of her clients simultaneously at the Baku pre-trial detention centre.
“I want to meet Aysel Umudova, Ulviya Ali, Aytaj Tapdig and Shamshad Agha at the same time. When I meet them separately, I have to wait 30 to 40 minutes each time for the next person to be brought in. As a result, the meetings take four to five hours.
We are told that because Shamshad Agha is a man, he cannot meet with his lawyer in the same room as the women. I don’t know what law says that. Is the detention centre being run under Sharia law?“
The court decided to send a letter to the detention centre stating that it had no objection to the defendants meeting their lawyer together in the same room.
Khayala Aghayeva: ‘We were arrested on political orders’
The presiding judge asked each of the defendants whether they pleaded guilty. All of them pleaded not guilty.
Ramin Deko said he wished to testify again.
Khayala Aghayeva said her statement at the previous hearing had been interrupted when the judges abruptly left the courtroom.
“We are here because of our journalism. So please show some tolerance towards our statements. At the next hearing, I will continue the testimony that was interrupted.“
The judge replied that only statements directly related to the case would be permitted. Aghayeva challenged this.
“What do you mean by ‘the substance of the case’? We were arrested on political orders.“
Nurlan Libre said his last investigation had focused on gambling establishments and that he believed this was the reason for his arrest. He said he intended to speak about this during his testimony.
State prosecutor Vusal Abdullayev objected to the journalists’ remarks.
“There should be no statements based on personal animosity. The charges are clear. They are free to practise journalism when they are at liberty. These individuals are charged with smuggling, so they should confine themselves to the substance of the case. They must not go beyond the bounds of courtroom decorum.“
Fatima Movlamli addressed the prosecutor as “Vusal bey” before beginning to respond. Abdullayev replied, “Don’t call me ‘bey’,” prompting laughter in the courtroom.
“‘Bey’ is too honourable a title for you. You’re here to slander us. The order to arrest us came from Ilham Aliyev, and we will say his name,” Movlamli replied.
‘The indictment is an insult to the Azerbaijani language’
Shamshad Agha also challenged the state prosecutor.
“This indictment is disgraceful. If you have read it, you should be ashamed. Yet you submitted it to the court without shame. Article 84 has been violated. During the investigation, the prosecutor’s office was required to participate in each of the 120 procedural decisions in this case. That is a breach of a mandatory legal provision.
“If I were in your position, I would be ashamed. Just before this hearing, I told those present that a typo in one of my recently published articles needed correcting. Yet you submitted an indictment that is an insult to the Azerbaijani language.”
At that point, the journalist’s microphone was switched off. Addressing the prosecutor, he said: “Shame on whoever turned off this microphone – and shame on you.”
The judge intervened, saying: “Let’s proceed with the hearing. Please refrain from making emotional statements.”
“It’s not about emotions. These people are paid from the state budget. Prosecutor General Kamran Aliyev and the other prosecutors involved in the Meydan TV case should repay the salaries they received while working on this case,” Shamshad Agha replied.
Ramin Deko said he would continue his testimony at the next hearing and planned to perform a meykhana, a traditional Azerbaijani form of improvised rhyming verse, during his statement.
‘I worked as a photographer during the Patriotic War’
Ahmad Mukhtar then took the stand to testify.
“I have worked as a photographer since 2009. I have no connection to Meydan TV.
In January 2024, Aynur Elgunesh told me she had an honorarium to collect in Tbilisi. While I was there, I picked up the money and brought it back to Baku. I would have done the same for any friend who asked. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to bring money into the country if the amount is below the legal limit?
At the time, I travelled to Tbilisi with my fellow photographer Elmin to have our cameras repaired. Later that year, I was due to work as a photographer during COP29, so the cameras needed to be repaired.
We did not take any money with us. Once there, we collected the money and bought a camera lens costing €3,500. After returning to Baku, we handed the remaining money to Aynur Elgunesh.
In October 2024, when I travelled to Tbilisi again, my friend Famil and I each brought €3,500 with us, €7,000 in total. That amount was below the legal limit. Before we travelled, Aynur Elgunesh told me she had received an award. It was her money, and I brought it back for her.
When we returned to the country on 11 October, we were searched. I was detained on 6 December.”
Ahmad Mukhtar: ‘These signatures are not mine’
“I have worked as a self-employed photographer since 2008-09, registered as a sole trader. I worked with organisations under contract and paid taxes. At BJM, I was simply given a small room to use.
During the Patriotic War, I photographed what I saw as aggression against Azerbaijan. I also covered visits to Karabakh organised by the Presidential Administration. Before the war ended, I took part in one such trip as a photographer. I also photographed the Emergency Ministry’s demining operations in Karabakh. From 2023 until my arrest, I worked as a photographer at business exhibitions organised by the Agriculture Ministry.“
Mukhtar said the amount of money that investigators claimed had been found in his possession had been overstated in the case file.
After he finished giving evidence, the state prosecutor asked why he had not declared the cash he was carrying when entering the country. The photographer replied that the amount was below the legal threshold requiring declaration.
The prosecutor insisted that the money should nevertheless have been declared. Defence lawyer Javad Javadov challenged that assertion.
Mukhtar’s lawyer, Rashad Aliyev, then asked whether the signatures on documents contained in the case file belonged to his client. Mukhtar replied that they did not.
The next hearing is scheduled for 24 July.
