The state of the judiciary as we enter the second century of our Republic

Seeing the phrase “Separation of powers, the rule of law, and judicial independence are essential” in a newspaper advertisement by the Atatürkist Thought Association, I could not help but reflect on the point the Turkish judiciary has reached today.

How did our legal system, which the Great Leader Atatürk valued so highly and wove stitch by stitch, reach this point?

How did Turkey fall to 116th place in the rule of law index, which compares 140 countries?

How did court decisions, which were once rarely featured in the press, become a subject of daily debate?

When the AKP government came to power, it first initiated efforts to purge and staff the judiciary to bring it to its current position.

As a result of the great support provided to the government in this regard by FETÖ members who had studied very hard for years, the high court cadres were first reconstituted using a "fill-and-empty" method.

In other words, especially after 2010, many members were appointed to high courts on the grounds that they were needed.

However, subsequently, in 2016, the unwanted members were removed from the high courts on the grounds that they were surplus to requirements. Furthermore, by effectively using the interview method, the goal of staffing the judiciary was largely achieved.

When looking at the number of FETÖ-affiliated judges and prosecutors dismissed after the coup attempt, the scale of the staffing movement within the judiciary becomes clearer. As a result, the principle of merit and seniority in the judiciary began to be replaced by a culture of loyalty and allegiance.

Following this stage, the judiciary was used as a weapon to carry out purge operations within state cadres, particularly in the Turkish Armed Forces. To this end, the judiciary was first taken outside the scope of universal legal principles.

Fabricating allegations, not taking defense statements or disregarding the defense provided, and failing to comply with the principle of the natural judge by establishing courts after the dispute or crime had occurred became dominant in most of the trials during this period.

Many Turkish citizens were victimized and forced to waste their lives in prisons through wiretaps conducted by police and intelligence organizations under judicial instruction, drawing desired conclusions from these wiretaps, and fabricating evidence of crimes.

Before the coup attempt, intense rights violations occurred in many cases such as Ergenekon, the coup trials, military espionage, and the Gezi Park protests.

Cases regarding train and mining accidents have not been concluded to this day.

After the coup attempt, thousands of public officials were dismissed via Statutory Decrees without being told what they were accused of and without their defense being taken.

The legal violations and trial criteria identified by the Council of State while reviewing the cases of public officials dismissed under Martial Law Act No. 1402 during the September 12 period are unfortunately not being taken into account by courts today.

Dismissal procedures not based on a sound legal screening and conviction decisions not based on any legal justification stand before us today as a social wound in Turkey.

Furthermore, despite the long time that has passed, cases that remain unresolved continue to increasingly erode the Turkish public's trust in the judiciary.

In this period as we enter the second century of our Republic, rights violations have become ordinary developments reflected in the press every day, and the nature of our country as a state of law has unfortunately become increasingly debated.

The judicial reforms enacted by the government have remained far from changing the outcome, and the restriction and inability to exercise judicial rights have resulted in a steadily decreasing trust in the judiciary, as reflected in polls.

It is now an undeniable fact that as long as our Republic enters its second century with major problems in the judiciary and as long as commitment to the law cannot be internalized, neither laws nor constitutional amendments will be able to resolve these issues.

It is clear that without establishing a strong state of law, our country's other problems will remain unresolved, and speeches made at high court and judicial year opening ceremonies will not save us.

Ahmet Hamdi ÜNLÜ, Former President of the 11th Chamber of the Council of State