Erhürman Returns Criminal Procedure Law Over Press Freedom Concerns

The law, which was approved by majority vote in Parliament on 5 May and submitted for presidential approval, was sent back after Erhürman concluded that it carried risks related to legal ambiguity, presumption of innocence, freedom of the press, and the adequacy of existing legal safeguards.

1. Legal Uncertainty Over Criminal Offence Definition

Erhürman said the proposed Article 23B introduces a new offence concerning the publication of names or images of suspects, defendants, witnesses, or complainants in criminal proceedings.

However, he argued that key terms such as “public dissemination,” “display,” and “exposure” are not clearly defined, creating legal uncertainty over what conduct would constitute a crime.

He warned that the wording could potentially criminalise not only direct identification but also journalistic reporting, social media commentary, and critical public discussion on matters of public interest.

He also noted that cases where individuals are later acquitted could lead to retrospective legal action over previously published material, creating further legal complications in relation to press freedom. He added that similar protections already exist within the current criminal code.

2. Lack of Consistency With Presumption Of Innocence

Although the amendment is framed around the “violation of the presumption of innocence,” Erhürman said the text does not provide a structured legal mechanism to protect that principle.

He stressed that the presumption of innocence is intended to prevent accused individuals from being portrayed as guilty before conviction, but existing legislation already covers issues such as privacy, personal rights, and data protection.

He also pointed to uncertainty over how terms such as “name” and “photograph” would be applied in digital media contexts, including whether anonymisation methods such as initials or blurred images would meet legal requirements.

3. Risk Of Disproportionate Restrictions On Press And Expression

Erhürman said the regulation directly affects reporting practices in the press and on social media, emphasising that freedom of expression is a fundamental element of democratic order.

He underlined that a careful balance must be maintained between the right to report and the protection of personal rights, as guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution.

He warned that exposing journalists to criminal liability could lead to self-censorship, ultimately harming the public’s right to information.

4. Existing Legal Protections Already In Place

Erhürman further argued that current legislation already includes protections regarding personal rights, privacy, defamation, and libel.

He said the new amendment risks creating overlapping and ambiguous legal provisions that could lead to inconsistent enforcement.

Decision To Return The Law

Citing these concerns, Erhürman formally returned the amendment to Parliament for reconsideration, stating that the legislation required further review under constitutional standards before it could be approved.