I had last come to the Constitutional Court the day Haşim Kılıç had made his saddening speech on changing stance.
As those words spilled from Mr. Kılıç's mouth, it felt as though the ceiling of the Constitutional Court had crumbled on top of me. I was surprised, saddened.
I didn't feel like attending the other ceremonies that followed. Despite his great services, Mr. Kılıç's finale wasn't a good one.
As for Constitutional Court President Zühtü Arslan, I have always followed him as a respectable judge.
Zühtü Arslan did not give a classic speech during yesterday's ceremonies. He showed his difference as a respectable judge. He opened to discussion the tutelage system, which is Turkey's most serious regime problem. And he did this on the anniversary of the April 27 e-memorandum.
He touched on the very important point of the judiciary's confrontation of the tutelage system. The higher judiciary, which was reformed with the May 27 coup, considered itself the protector of the tutelage system. Acting upon that mindset, it closed down parties, decided on the prohibition of wearing the headscarf and sided with the pro-coup lot.
When it came on top of the “parallel judiciary coup” that happened on the weekend, this warning gained more significance. I don't think Zühtü Arslan wanted to touch on the matter in the heat of the moment. But, hasn't this country been exposed to coup attempts through the judiciary since Dec. 17? The incident that took place over the weekend was important in terms of showing what the parallel judiciary can risk.
The Constitutional Court president said, “A remote controlled judiciary is unthinkable.” So what happened on the weekend? There was an attempt to snatch men out of prison upon an order from Pennsylvania. I want to put this on hold for the moment and touch on important notes from the Constitutional Court president's speech.
Zühtü Arslan made some solid criticisms of the judiciary. He said, “The judiciary cannot act like a social or political engineer.” He uttered these words at the right time and place. It was a very solid criticism of the judiciary which had been acting for years like a political and social engineer and closing down parties, banning politicians, acting like the buttress of interim regimes, in his capacity as Constitutional Court president.
I don't think anybody would object to Zühtü Arslan when he said, “The politicization of the judiciary would be the end of the government.” Even those who applauded the judiciary's running to the General Staff during the interim regime periods for a briefing, acting like the main opposition party during democratic processes, can't object. This is the shame of the Turkish judiciary, and its never ending record.
The new constitution was also mentioned in detail during Zühtü Arslan's speech. “This country has been in search of its constitution for 150 years” is an important perception. We can only declare that military tutelage is over when we are governed with a constitution made by civilians, not by coups. Otherwise our gains will always remain cyclical.
John Rawls and Kant were all mentioned in the Constitutional Court president's speech. But so were Rumi, Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli and 'Ahlak-ı Alai' author Kınalızade Ali Çelebi. He had skillfully cited from both the universal and our own cultural codes. I was fortunate to be one of those present at the hall listening to the Constitutional Court president's speech. Otherwise, I would still have the old picture in my memory.
Following the parallel judiciary's coup attempt, I regretted not listening to one person's talks for a long time. I haven't been following Fethullah Gülen's talks since his famous cursing session. He took off his imam guise and took the pro-coup position. What rightful reason can there be in this country for a coup attempt against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan? Could a religious community's job be to carry out a coup against Erdoğan, in whom the Muslim world has so much hope? Religious communities take care of providing services; they don't seek coups like the junta. Fethullah Gülen used his imam guise for bad things. Despite my objections, as a news reporter, I should have followed his talks. Glen apparently gave the order for the judiciary coup exactly a week ago. When the parallel judges received the order from Alamut Castle - pardon me, from Pennsylvania - it was up to them to carry out the order, no questions asked. The perfect kamikaze situation.
Although they know it is not authorized to do so, 68 petitions are submitted to the 29th Court of First Instance for recusation. All by the lawyers of members of the parallel structure. Of course it was predetermined. Once Metin Özçelik, the judge for the court in charge of war alone, approved the recusation request, deeming himself the main authority, he tasks the 32nd Court of First Instance to evaluate the release demands. On June 18, 2014, the Court of Peace judgeships had been formed to end the confusion of authority regarding releases and judicial proceedings under investigation. The rate of authority, since June 18, is effective as stated in law. In the face of these facts, the 32nd Court of First Instance Judge, Mustafa Başer, who attempted to carry out a procedure on the petitions regarding the releases, requests the investigation files. However, investigation prosecutors do not send the files on the grounds of his lack of authority. He has no file. So based on which file – that you did not examine - are you carrying out procedures regarding the releases? You lock the office, seize the court clerk's phone, the attendant faints from the rush and in the face of the unlawfulness they are forced into being an instrument, all while you continue to write the decisions for release. But does he login into UYAP? Because there is no right to access those files in UYAP. Our clerk-fainting judge makes a complete blind flight.
He illegitimately writes the decisions for release, but who does he give it to instead of the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to which Silivri Prison is assigned? To the lawyers of the parallel detainees. Because they are the ones who are going to carry out the releases! In this case, the authorized court takes action, the play ends with the issue of a court order invalidating the release decisions.
We did not realize the danger approaching us on Feb. 7. That is why we were exposed to the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 coup attempts. This means the alarms are ringing. Those who did this today, will, once the conjuncture changes tomorrow, issue decisions from courts assigned for divorce cases to arrest people. Didn't they do it in the past? People were arrested for six-seven years without even a bill of indictment. Hence, finding radical solutions has become inevitable. Cutting the parallel judiciary beyond the HSYK's investigation, with a legal regulation similar to the police, has now become compulsory.
If this is avoided, tomorrow we will have to pay unavoidable prices.
