KOCAELİ — Ümit Özdağ, the Chairman of the Zafer Party and a prominent figure in Turkish politics, appeared before a judge for the fourth time on September 30, 2026, to face allegations of "threatening" behavior. The case, which has drawn significant public and media attention, stems from a legal complaint filed by Şevki Yılmaz, a former Member of Parliament for the now-defunct Welfare Party (Refah Partisi). The legal battle is the latest chapter in a heated ideological and personal dispute between the two men, rooted in conflicting views on the history of the Turkish Republic and the legacy of the Ottoman Empire.
The hearing took place at the Kocaeli 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance. While the complainant, Şevki Yılmaz, did not attend the proceedings, Ümit Özdağ was present in the courtroom alongside his legal counsel to deliver his defense. The prosecution, in its opinion on the merits of the case, has requested that Özdağ be sentenced for the alleged threats. However, Özdağ maintained during his testimony that his words were not intended as a threat of physical violence but rather as a promise of an academic and political reckoning based on historical facts.
The Origins of the Legal Conflict
The roots of the prosecution date back to early 2024, during a high-profile wedding ceremony in Istanbul for Berna Sultan Osmanoğlu, a descendant of the Ottoman dynasty. The event was attended by various political figures and historians. During the ceremony, Şevki Yılmaz, known for his conservative and often controversial rhetoric, delivered a speech that sparked immediate backlash. Referring to the end of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent exile of the royal family following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, Yılmaz stated, "I curse the degenerate ones (soysuzlar) who exiled the Ottomans."
The use of the term "soysuzlar" (meaning "degenerate" or "without lineage") was widely interpreted as a direct insult to the founders of the Turkish Republic, specifically Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the members of the First Grand National Assembly who voted for the abolition of the Caliphate and the exile of the Ottoman family in 1924.
Ümit Özdağ, a staunch defender of Kemalist principles and the secular foundations of the Republic, responded to Yılmaz’s comments via his social media account. In a post that eventually became the subject of the lawsuit, Özdağ addressed Yılmaz directly: "Şevki, I hope we meet somewhere. I will show you who is noble and who is degenerate." Following this post, Yılmaz filed a criminal complaint, alleging that Özdağ’s words constituted a threat to his safety.
Developments During the Fourth Hearing
As the trial reached its fourth hearing in Kocaeli, the legal arguments focused on the interpretation of Özdağ’s social media post. The prosecution argued that the phrasing "I will show you" implied a threat of physical confrontation or harm, justifying a conviction under the Turkish Penal Code.
Özdağ, however, offered a different interpretation during his defense. He argued that his response was a necessary reaction to an insult directed at the very foundations of the state. He asserted that Yılmaz’s comments were not merely personal opinions but a targeted attack on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM).
"I am not talking about doing something evil," Özdağ told the court. "The expression I used is very clear. The people who sent the Ottoman dynasty abroad were Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Veteran Assembly. There is no debate about this fact. By using those words, Şevki Yılmaz openly insulted the leaders of our War of Independence and the founders of our Republic."
Defense Focuses on Academic and Political Identity
A central pillar of Özdağ’s defense was the distinction between his professional identity and the persona attributed to him by the prosecution. Özdağ emphasized his background as a Professor of Political Science and an academic who has dedicated his career to studying the history of the Turkish Republic.
"I do not know him personally, and we have never met," Özdağ stated, referring to Yılmaz. "He is a politician, and I am a politician. I was showing a reaction to his statements. When I say, ‘If we meet one day, I will show you who is noble and who is degenerate,’ you must consider who is speaking. I am a professor of political science. If I were a professional boxer, perhaps you could conclude that ‘showing’ something implies a physical fight. But as a political science academic, what I will show is not physical violence; it is documentation and knowledge."
Özdağ argued that in the context of a political and historical debate, "showing" the truth involves presenting evidence, archival documents, and historical records. He maintained that his intention was to confront Yılmaz with the historical realities of the late Ottoman period and the early Republican era, rather than to engage in a physical altercation. "Neither an insult nor a threat can be derived from these words," he concluded in his courtroom statement.
Statements Outside the Courthouse
Following the conclusion of the hearing, Ümit Özdağ addressed members of the press gathered outside the Kocaeli Courthouse. He reiterated his stance that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence criticism of anti-Republican rhetoric. He also brought up the reactions of others who were present at the wedding where Yılmaz made the initial comments.
"At that wedding, where one of the parties was a member of the Ottoman family, Şevki Yılmaz used the phrase, ‘I curse the degenerate ones who exiled the Ottomans,’" Özdağ recounted to reporters. "The decision to exile the dynasty was taken by Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the government of the time, and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Therefore, Şevki Yılmaz clearly insulted the leader of our War of Independence, the founder of our Republic, the founding cadres, and the Veteran Assembly."
Özdağ noted that he was not the only person offended by the remarks. He mentioned that the late renowned historian İlber Ortaylı, who was also in attendance at the wedding, had shown a sharp reaction to Yılmaz’s speech. He added that many other politicians from across the spectrum had expressed similar outrage.
"As a professor of political science and an academic who wrote a doctoral thesis on this specific period, I told him, ‘If we meet, I will show you who is noble and who is degenerate,’" Özdağ said. "And indeed, if we had met, I would have explained to him, one by one, with documents, who committed ‘degeneracy,’ who said ‘yes’ to the occupation, and who was busy getting married while the Turkish nation was fighting a war of life and death on the banks of the Sakarya River during the War of Independence."
The Ideological Context of the Trial
The case against Ümit Özdağ is viewed by many political observers as more than a simple "threat" case; it is seen as a reflection of the deep-seated ideological divisions within Turkish society regarding the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic. The Zafer Party, led by Özdağ, positions itself as a staunchly nationalist and Kemalist organization, frequently clashing with figures who represent the more Islamist or neo-Ottomanist perspectives prevalent in certain political circles.
Şevki Yılmaz has long been a polarizing figure in Turkey. As a former deputy of the Welfare Party—the predecessor to several modern conservative parties—his speeches have frequently drawn legal scrutiny for their stance on secularism and the Republican reforms. By contrast, Özdağ has built his political platform on a platform of "Turkishness," secularism, and a strict adherence to the principles laid down by Atatürk.
The trial in Kocaeli highlights the sensitivity of historical memory in Turkey. The exile of the Ottoman family in 1924 remains a point of contention for some conservative groups, while for Republicans, it is viewed as a necessary step in the birth of a modern, sovereign nation-state.
Procedural Status and Next Steps
With the fourth hearing concluded, the court has yet to reach a final verdict. The defense has requested that the court consider the academic and political context of the statements, while the prosecution continues to push for a sentence based on the literal interpretation of the word "threat" within the Turkish legal framework.
The court has adjourned the proceedings to a later date to evaluate the defense’s arguments and the evidence presented. As the legal process continues, the case remains a focal point for discussions on the limits of political rhetoric and the protection of Republican values in the judicial sphere.
Ümit Özdağ and his legal team have indicated that they will continue to challenge the charges, maintaining that the defense of the Republic’s founders cannot be categorized as a criminal threat. The outcome of this case is expected to set a significant precedent regarding how political and historical debates are mediated in the courtroom, especially when they involve the core identities of the Turkish state.
