Separating perceptions from facts!

Let's speak plainly, without beating around the bush. The issue is clear, the subject is actually straightforward.

Because I have been following the process closely, I can easily say: The detention and arrest of Esenyurt Mayor Ahmet Özer appear to be a “political” process rather than a “legal” one…

Let's elaborate on the subject…

First of all, it must be stated that, like many others, I do not find it appropriate for a Mayor to be detained at 05:30 in the morning, given the continuity of public service and the respect due to the will of the voters.

This practice is reminiscent of controversial judicial processes that have long been criticized, involving dawn raids on the homes of soldiers, journalists, and politicians in the past.

While going to a person's home and workplace in the early hours of the morning is a method that can only be resorted to in cases where there is a suspicion of flight, doing so for a high-level public official like a Mayor seems to be the result of an “effort to create a political perception” rather than a necessity…

When we delve a little deeper into the subject, we see that the oddities experienced during the investigation phase serve this perception.

So much so that the accusation directed at Ahmet Özer is “being a member of a terrorist organization.” The criteria determined for this crime to be established have been shaped by Supreme Court of Appeals decisions.

The Supreme Court of Appeals requires, first and foremost, the existence of a “strict hierarchical bond” for this crime to be established. In short, it expects the individual to surrender their will to the organization they are “affiliated with” and to act in a “unconditional” manner and in a state of “submission” in line with the instructions of this organization.

It is not my intention to overwhelm you with legal debates. It is certainly not to examine the High Court's decisions at length.

But it must be stated that if there is no finding regarding a “strict hierarchical bond,” the crime of “being a member of an organization” cannot be established.

So, is there any evidence that Ahmet Özer acted under an organizational instruction or surrendered his will unconditionally? If you look at the investigation file, there is none!

Where do we see this? In the prosecution's “request for arrest” and the Criminal Judgeship of Peace's “arrest decision”…

So what is there?

Books written by Ahmet Özer in the past, a folder sitting on his desk that is stated to be a book draft, remittances regarding rent payments coming into his account, and a phrase said to a person “for the purpose of condolences upon the passing of their mother,” saying, “they raised valuable children like you.”

What else is there?

6 SMS messages and 7 call records sent to a person named Remzi Kartal, most recently in 2015, that is, during the “solution process.” Is there any finding regarding the period after 2015? There is none of that either!

So what is there?

For example, there are photos reflected on social media regarding a meal that AK Party deputies had with this person in the same years.

Returning to the investigation file again…

The prosecution has extracted all communication records made over 12 years and determined who Ahmet Özer spoke with and how many times. It has been determined that there are 694 records, the majority of which were again during the “solution process.” This data is a statistic of SMS messages and conversations. Their contents, that is, what they talked about, are not there.

You may have read in Barış Terkoğlu's article published in Cumhuriyet Newspaper on October 30. The allegation is that Ahmet Özer's name is among those who “will contribute to the democratic autonomy project.” When? Between 2013 and 2015. For what? For “contribution to the solution process”… Where? During a meeting “held by officials from the Security Bureaucracy” with Öcalan, who is being invited to Parliament these days…

No matter how you look at it, it is awkward; no matter through which lens you see it, everything is like a projection of a non-legal process…

So much so that, how should we interpret the news that “a trustee has been appointed to Esenyurt Municipality” published in Sabah Newspaper while the Prosecution Statement was still ongoing, its initial denial by the Ministry of Interior, and the appointment of a Deputy Governor as Mayor in line with the news in the following hours?

In the face of these illegalities, which can only be found in third-world countries, it is necessary to note the opinions that are the voice of the legal world.

Bilgi University Faculty of Law Dean Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer assesses, “The 'allegations' in the arrest request are not of a nature that could create liability for membership in a terrorist organization. It is evident that the investigation is politically motivated; it is clear from the fact that even expressing 'condolences' for a deceased mother in the request is made a justification for organizational membership. This typical tunnel-vision case is a 'Schauprozess' (show trial),” which is an objection rising from academia to the application of Enemy Criminal Law.

On the other hand, Gazi University Faculty of Law Lecturer Prof. Dr. İzzet Özgenç commented on these allegations, saying, “The issues brought to the agenda in the request for arrest... regarding the Mayor of Esenyurt... do not carry the nature that would require the person's responsibility for membership in a terrorist organization.”

We are witnessing that both of these names are among the academics who prepared the Turkish Penal Code, and today they are criticizing practices that take place in a way contrary to the purpose of the Law and the law itself.

Another absurdity is the mystery regarding when the investigation into Ahmet Özer, who was elected Mayor 7 months ago, was initiated. There are those who say it was started in 2024 based on the investigation number, and those who claim it was 2023 based on wiretapping processes. There are also those who claim that the investigation has been ongoing for 10 years and the file was taken off the shelf when Ahmet Özer was elected Mayor.

Regardless of which is true, we need to speak with concrete evidence and approach events objectively, without looking at the person or their identity.

We must be clear and consistent; we have to make evaluations by “separating perceptions from facts.”

The problem is that talking about the law has never been left to lawyers in this country. Today, we see that politicians and journalists are at the forefront.

The screens are full of those who label people as terrorists or those who describe it as a conspiracy. Is the fault theirs? I don't think so.

The real fault lies with those who sacrifice the judiciary to politics for their own interests in today's Turkey and use the law as a tool to design politics.

We are going through days when we have learned no lessons and easily forgotten the mistakes of the past. These are times when Legal Security hangs by a thread; times when it must not be forgotten that defending “judicial independence” is defending “individual freedoms.”