Why does the AKP not trust today’s Supreme Council?
It is not possible legally and with reason to consider a trial at the Supreme Council to be part of a coup.
First of all, today’s Constitutional Court, which the Supreme Council is a part of, was formed with the 2010 referendum. Of the incumbent 17 members of the Constitutional Court, 13 were appointed during the term of this government. Ten were appointed by former President Abdullah Gül, one by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and two by Parliament. There are only four members left who were appointed by former President Ahmet Sezer.
Another aspect: When the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) came to power, it sent cases for names such as Hüsamettin Özkan, Mesut Yılmaz, Koray Aydın and Cumhur Ersümer to the Supreme Court. Özkan and Aydın were acquitted, while the sentence for Ersümer and the ruling about Yılmaz were postponed.
Well, if the Supreme Council was trustworthy then, why is the Supreme Council of today, which is mainly made up of members appointed by AK Party-origin presidents, not so trustworthy?
The head of the Constitutional Court Haşim Kılıç is retiring in March. No president can ever instruct members of the Court anyway, but Kılıç will not even be able to participate in the first hearing. Moreover, Erdoğan will appoint a new member for the vacant seat at the Court.
Why does the government, which trusted the Constitutional Court when it was sending cases to it, not trust it now?
Obviously, it is completely political.
The nonsuit decision of the prosecutor about the Dec. 17, 2013 file is not binding for the Supreme Council. First of all, the “suspects” are different. Also, the Supreme Council has case law power; it follows European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments.
When the Dec. 17 and 25 investigations started, the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) decided to investigate relevant prosecutors and security personnel who did not conduct their search duties. The justice minister approved the investigation of prosecutors and these prosecutors were removed.
However, the same HSYK also decided to investigate the official who decided to remove the security officer and the prosecutors; the same justice minister blocked these investigations. Thus, the investigation conducted by the HSYK was “incomplete” and biased.
According to ECHR practice, an “effective investigation” is obligatory. Investigations should not be incomplete and biased. For this reason, the Supreme Council could have expanded the investigation.
Apart from that, there is also a very important judgment by the ECHR that illegally collected evidence is not valid, but if a corruption was caught this way, it cannot be banned from revealing it to the public. (Case of Radio Twist, No. 62202/00)
The Supreme Council could have, from this point of view, considered itself not binding by the prosecutor’s nonsuit decision and could have felt the need to research for evidence. Open hearings would have been held at the Supreme Council, both the defense and the prosecution could have proceeded in the eyes of the public and there would not have been any doubts left.
It is understood that the inquiry commission, by shying away from all of that, made a political decision. Let's see what will now happen in the secret voting at Parliament.
If there had been a trial, they could have been acquitted. But if politics once again blocks the normal path of justice. As Cemil Çiçek has said, “If they do not go to the Supreme Council, then this topic will continuously be discussed and the debates would go on forever.”
Trust for justice will be shaken even more.