Turkish justice minister rejects forming of secretariat in İmralı
The justice minister’s statements came after reports that “an expanded HDP delegation” will visit Öcalan on Nov. 30. AA PhotoTurkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ has denied claims that a secretariat will be established in İmralı Island prison for the ongoing negotiations with Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), speaking late on Nov. 25.
“The law states who can stay in prisons: Nobody but inmates. The debate about [establishing] a secretariat in İmralı has become an operation targeting our government. The misconception of a private secretary being sent to work on the island has been created. This is completely wrong. This is not [discussed] politically and is not possible legally,” said Bozdağ.
Hinting that any secretariat could possibly be made of inmates, Bozdağ observed that Öcalan is not the sole inmate in İmralı and added that the number of inmates in the island prison could change in time.
The justice minister’s statements came after reports that “an expanded HDP delegation” will visit Öcalan on Nov. 30.
On Nov. 21, Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) Deputy Parliamentary Group Chair Pervin Buldan voiced her expectation that the government would soon take steps to form a “secretariat team” for Öcalan, speaking after a meeting with Bozdağ.
Meanwhile, Bozdağ also criticized Supreme Court of Appeals head Ali Alkan’s recent critical statement over planned changes to the body.
Bozdağ said the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) will choose the investigating judges in accordance with the law and in line with the way it elects the head of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
“None of these changes are against the Constitution or independent judiciary principles,” he added.
Speaking on Nov. 24, Alkan had strongly criticized the proposed changes, describing them as “against the independence of the judiciary.”
“We were not consulted about the new regulations. How long will such interventions continue?” Alkan said in a written statement, also questioning what kind of top committee of the court could satisfy the government.