TDP: Draft Criminal Code Poses A Serious Threat To Press Freedom And Constitutional Safeguards

In a statement, TDP said this “search for a remedy,” described as the product of a mindset devoid of legal, moral and ethical values, was undoubtedly being advanced as a reflex to conceal potential networks of corrupt relationships.

While acknowledging that certain aspects of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code may be justified, TDP said it was evident that, under the guise of “addressing fundamental needs and adapting to present-day conditions,” the process was also serving other concealed objectives, pushed through in undue haste.

The party warned that the draft amendments pose irreparable risks in terms of legal technique and constitutional guarantees. Although the regulations claim to protect public order, TDP said the vague wording and unpredictable sanctions they contain carry the potential to directly violate not only the Constitution but also the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms part of the country’s domestic legal framework.

One of the most problematic elements of the draft, according to TDP, is the concept of “false information.” The statement stressed that it is deliberately left unclear who would determine falsity, according to which criteria, and at what point in time. Recalling that, in criminal law, whether an allegation corresponds to material truth can only be established by a final court ruling, TDP said requiring the press—acting as a public watchdog—to wait for court decisions before reporting would render public oversight meaningless and fundamentally undermine the democratic order.

TDP further argued that provisions under the heading of “organised disinformation,” which include open-ended concepts such as “creating public impact,” “undermining trust,” and “acting in coordination,” clearly violate the principle of legal certainty and the prohibition of analogy—both cornerstones of criminal law. Such ambiguity, the party warned, risks having a chilling effect on journalists and institutionalising self-censorship.

The statement also criticised the excessively broad definition of the perpetrator through the phrase “any person who publishes,” noting that even an ordinary social media user who merely shares or quotes a news item could face public prosecution. This, TDP said, undermines the principle that there can be no punishment without fault and distorts the balance of personal culpability in favour of the state.

TDP added that the phrase “activities exceeding the limits of reporting” in the draft’s third paragraph does little to mitigate these risks. The concept of “the limits of reporting,” it noted, has not been clearly defined in judicial practice and lacks consensus even among legal scholars. Given that criminal investigations are largely conducted by police officers who are not legally trained, the party warned that the judiciary could be burdened with unnecessary and unserious cases.

According to TDP, the proposed regulation would effectively make investigative journalism—and reporting on corruption and the abuse of public power—impossible in the TRNC. The statement underlined that freedom of the press is also a duty, recalling that European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has consistently held that the press’s obligation to inform the public is not dependent on the absolute accuracy of information at the time of publication. It also noted that existing legal avenues, including defamation claims under the Torts Law, are already available for addressing allegedly false reports.

In conclusion, TDP pointed out that contemporary democratic states are moving towards decriminalising such offences, whereas in the TRNC new offences are being created and the scope of existing ones expanded. Stressing that the law is needed by everyone, the party warned that those who believe they may benefit from such changes today could themselves be harmed by them tomorrow.