RULING ON GUL TOUCHES POLITICAL NERVES
Today’s Zaman
May 20 2009
Turkey
An Ankara court ruling ordering President Abdullah Gul to stand trial
in a decade-old fraud case may heighten political tensions between
the government and the secularist opposition.
An Ankara court ruling ordering President Abdullah Gul to stand
trial in a decade-old fraud case is unlikely to affect the president
in the short term, but may heighten political tensions between the
government and the secularist opposition and sabotage efforts led by
Gul to resolve Turkey’s long-standing Kurdish issue.
The decision of the high criminal court in Ankara’s Sincan district
came as a surprise to many because it ran counter to a prosecutor’s
recommendation made earlier. The Turkish Constitution is also clear
in specifying that presidents cannot be tried for anything except
treason. The court disagreed, saying, "It is a rule in the Turkish
Republic’s Constitution and laws that everyone should stand trial."
The Turkish judiciary, dominated by secularist judges and prosecutors,
has long been subject to criticism over its interference in
politics. The European Union, which Turkey aspires to join, has
repeatedly called for judicial reform.
Gul, who led Turkey’s efforts to become an EU member and played a
key role in the opening of accession talks with the 27-nation bloc
in 2005, is now calling for efforts to resolve Turkey’s Kurdish
issue. In remarks he made over the weekend, Gul said significant
steps were forthcoming and that he was hopeful that the problem would
be resolved through more democracy because there was "harmony among
state institutions."
Ankara court ruling may undermine president’s efforts on Kurdish issue
"I don’t think the real issue is whether Gul should stand trial or
not here. I believe the decision of the court may be linked to Gul’s
efforts to heal the Kurdish issue," said Mehmet Altan, a columnist
for the Star daily.
The court ruling against Gul came days after a legal crisis involving
members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) that erupted
following an official notice ordering five party deputies to testify
as part of ongoing legal cases in which they are implicated. The
deputies, however, refuse to testify, saying they would be subjected
to discrimination if they were forced to do so because deputies
from other parties were not forced to testify in court for crimes
they were charged with having committed before they were elected as
deputies. They now face the risk of being forcefully taken to court
by police, raising fears over the possible repetition of an infamous
incident in the past decade, in which Kurdish deputy Leyla Zana and
four others were arrested for their affiliation with the outlawed
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
"There are so many groups in Turkey that do not want to see the
deep-seated problems of this country resolved," Altan told Today’s
Zaman.
In a statement released late on Monday, Gul’s office rejected the
Ankara court’s ruling, stressing that the Constitution dictates
that the president can be put on trial only for treason. Although the
court’s insistence that Gul should stand trial is legally questionable,
it may lead to increased criticism from the secularist opposition
that the president, formerly a member of the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AK Party), is not willing to go to court to testify
on corruption charges.
Burhan Kuzu, professor of constitutional law and a ruling
Justice and Development Party (AK Party) deputy who heads a
commission in Parliament charged with revising the Constitution,
said it is not possible to try the president, as he is as immune
from prosecution. Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan backed Kuzu’s
statement and reiterated that Gul cannot be tried on such a charge
according to Constitution. "He can only stand trial if he is charged
with betrayal of the country while he is in office, and we need to
examine the dossier of the prosecution to understand whether he can
even be tried for the reason the court demanded after he steps down,"
Toptan added. Similar views were shared by constitutional law professor
Mustafa Kamalak and former Minister of Justice Hikmet Sami Turk.
In the criminal case in question, known as the "lost trillion case,"
the administration of the now-defunct Welfare Party (RP) was accused
of embezzling TL 1 trillion (equivalent to TL 1 million today)
by forging documents in 1997. The leader of the party at the time,
Necmettin Erbakan, and several party executives were imprisoned for
the roles they played in the incident. Gul, who was the RP’s deputy
chairman responsible for foreign relations at the time, did not face
trial because he had been re-elected as a deputy, thereby becoming
immune from prosecution. However, experts say that even if he was
tried he would have been acquitted because his duties in the party
had nothing to do with financial affairs. Other party executives
who did not handle financial affairs, such as Å~^evket Kazan, Recai
Kutan and Oguzhan Asilturk, have all been acquitted. Even the deputy
chairman and general accountant of party were acquitted.
After Gul was elected as president, the Ankara Chief Public
Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the charges against Gul, citing Article
105 of the Turkish Constitution, under which presidents can only stand
trial for treason and then only if it is authorized by three-fourths
of the deputies in Parliament. The Sincan 1st High Criminal
Court, however, overruled the decision of the Ankara Chief Public
Prosecutor’s Office on Monday and demanded that Gul be prosecuted
for counterfeiting official documents. The court said there was a
loophole in the Constitution and that it is not clear that presidents
are immune from prosecution for crimes committed before taking office.
Gul’s office released a statement on Monday dismissing the court’s
ruling. "Our president did not face a criminal case because of
his immunity, which was not annulled by Parliament despite his
own persistent requests. However, whereas even the party’s deputy
chairman responsible for financial affairs and general accountant
were acquitted in the criminal case opened at the time, the efforts
of some groups to make our president a suspect in a case in which he
was not tried are definitely not a result of goodwill. In addition,
because his immunity did not cover legal action for recovery of
damages, a case was opened against the president and several others,
but that case was dismissed on April 19, 2007, citing the fact that
he had no responsibility for financial affairs in his position in
the party at the time," the statement said.
Head of court known for controversial decisions This ruling is not the
first controversial decision by Osman Kacmaz, head of the Sincan 1st
High Criminal Court. He previously overruled the dismissal of a case
over a campaign to apologize for the killings of Anatolian Armenians
in 1915. He also overruled a decision by the Ankara Chief Public
Prosecutor’s Office on the wiretapping of criminal suspects. This
decision was made after a petition was filed by Omer Faruk Eminagaoglu,
head of the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV), known for
his staunch opposition to the ongoing investigation into Ergenekon,
a criminal network charged with plotting to topple the government.
The same court also overruled the dismissal of a case against Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his alleged use of the term "Mr." to
refer to Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of the outlawed PKK.